The Impact of Festival Participation on Social Well-Being

Clemson University Clemson University

TigerPrints TigerPrints

All Dissertations Dissertations

May 2020

The Impact of Festival Participation on Social Well-Being and The Impact of Festival Participation on Social Well-Being and

Subjective Well-Being: A Study of the International Orange Subjective Well-Being: A Study of the International Orange

Blossom Carnival Visitors in Turkey Blossom Carnival Visitors in Turkey

Nese Yilmaz Clemson University, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_dissertations

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Yilmaz, Nese, "The Impact of Festival Participation on Social Well-Being and Subjective Well-Being: A Study of the International Orange Blossom Carnival Visitors in Turkey" (2020). All Dissertations. 2582. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_dissertations/2582

This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Dissertations at TigerPrints. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Dissertations by an authorized administrator of TigerPrints. For more information, please contact [email protected].

https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/

https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_dissertations

https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/dissertations

https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_dissertations?utm_source=tigerprints.clemson.edu%2Fall_dissertations%2F2582&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_dissertations/2582?utm_source=tigerprints.clemson.edu%2Fall_dissertations%2F2582&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

mailto:[email protected]

THE IMPACT OF FESTIVAL PARTICIPATION ON SOCIAL WELL-BEING

AND SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING: A STUDY OF THE INTERNATIONAL

ORANGE BLOSSOM CARNIVAL VISITORS IN TURKEY

A Dissertation

Presented to

the Graduate School of

Clemson University

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Management

by

Nese YILMAZ

May 2020

Accepted by

Sheila J. Backman, Committee Chair

Kenneth F. Backman

Muzaffer Uysal

Brent L. Hawkins

ii

ABSTRACT

Festivals provide numerous benefits for societies. For instance, they enhance

destinations’ images in visitors’ mind, therefore they are very useful marketing tools to

promote the destinations and their attractions (Fredline & Faulkner, 2000; Yolal et al.,

2016). They also have a great impact on boosting local economy through tax revenues,

increased employment and business opportunities through increased visitor arrivals,

expanded tourist season, and extended length of stay and expenditures (Yolal et al., 2009).

Moreover, they have positive social impacts on local communities such as increasing the

community attachment of residents (Lau & Li, 2015) and strengthening community ties

with past or existing culture which help to preserve local culture (Bagiran & Kurgun,

2013). Beyond generating all the economic and social benefits and opportunities, festivals

are likely to create positive significant impacts on both the residents’ and visitors’

subjective well-being (SWB) (Jepson & Stadler, 2017; Packer & Ballantyne, 2011; Yolal

et al., 2016).

Despite the substantial literature on the association between leisure, recreation,

tourism, travel and subjective well-being (SWB), until recently, there are only few

studies concerning festivals’ positive impacts on SWB (Jepson & Stadler, 2017; Yolal,

Gursoy, & Uysal, 2016). Therefore, this study aimed to contribute to the limited

understanding of the possible impacts of festival participation on SBW of festival

participants. Moreover, the study investigated the relationships between the following

main constructs: festival motivations, festival satisfaction, perceived social impacts of

iii

festival, social well-being, subjective wellbeing (positive affect, negative affect and life

satisfaction), revisit intention and word of mouth.

The study used a face to face survey to obtain quantitative data. The data was

collected from the attendees of the 6th International Orange Blossom Carnival, 2018 in

Adana, Turkey. A total of 652 festival visitors were approached and invited to participate

in the survey. Of the 652 visitors, 550 accepted to be in the study and filled out the survey

(response rate: %84). The data was analyzed using SPSS 25 and EQS 6.3 with advanced

Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA). To test the hypothetical relationships, the structural

equation modeling (SEM) method was adopted.

Based on the results of final structural model, some hypotheses were rejected

while most of the hypotheses failed to be rejected. While no significant relationship was

found between festival motivation and wellbeing factors (positive affect, negative affect,

life satisfaction and social wellbeing), significant association was found between festival

satisfaction and wellbeing factors. The results also indicate that there is a significant

relationship between the perceived social impacts of the festival and wellbeing of the

festival attendees. Furthermore, the study also found that positive affect has a positive

link to revisit intention and word of mouth, while negative affect has negative

associations with both revisit intention and word of mouth. The findings suggest that

moods during the festival impacts the participants intention to revisit the festival next

year. Similar to affect, life satisfaction has also significant relationship with both revisit

intention and word of mouth. This finding suggest that individuals who has higher life

satisfaction has higher intention to revisit the festival. Finally, the study found a

iv

significant association link from social wellbeing to both revisit intention and word of

mouth reccomendations.

The study provided important practical implications for festival organizers and

community leaders to maximize the positive social benefits of festivals and gain more

support for their organizations. Identifying the factors affecting subjective well-being of

attendees and understanding the relationships among the factors can help organizers to

develop strategies to monitor and better manage these factors.

v

DEDICATION

To my husband Emrah YILMAZ for his love and support. The completion of this

doctorate degree is just as much his accomplishment as it is mine.

vi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First of all, I want to thank to all my committee members especially my

committee chair Dr. Sheila J. Backman for her guidance, support, patience, persistence

throughout the long journey of developing and completing this dissertation. I would also

like to thank to my PhD committee members – Dr. Kenneth F. Backman, Dr. Muzaffer

Uysal and Dr. Brent L. Hawkins for their insightful suggestions and guidance towards

accomplishing my dissertation.

I am also highly grateful to Dr. Peter J. Mkumbo for his friendship, and for his

knowledge and patience in answering my unending statistical questions.

I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to my family, to my parents Gul Polat

and Ekrem Polat, and my parents-in-law Esin Yilmaz and Ismail Yilmaz for their love,

care, support and prayers. I also thank to my sister Elif POLAT for always being there for

me. This dissertation would not have been possible without you all.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... ii

DEDICATION....................................................................................................................v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................... vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................... vii

LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................x

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................... xiii

CHAPTER 1 .......................................................................................................................1

INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1

1.1. Problem Statement ....................................................................................................3

1.2. Research Purpose and Objectives .............................................................................4

1.3. Research Questions and Hypotheses ........................................................................5

1.4. Definition of Terms...................................................................................................8

CHAPTER 2 .....................................................................................................................11

LITERATURE REVIEW ...............................................................................................11

2.1. Importance of Festivals ...........................................................................................11

2.2. Subjective Well-Being (SWB) ................................................................................13

2.2.1. Theoretical Framework ...................................................................................18

2.2.2. Relation between Leisure Engagement and Subjective Well-Being (SWB) .....21

2.2.3. Relation between Tourism and Subjective Well-Being (SWB) .........................25

2.2.4. Relation between Festival and Subjective Well-Being (SWB) .........................29

2.3. Social Well-Being ...................................................................................................31

2.4. Perceived Social Impacts of Festivals .....................................................................34

2.4.1. Relation between Perceived Impacts of Festivals and Subjective Well-Being

(SWB) .........................................................................................................................37

2.5. Festival and Event Motivation ................................................................................38

2.5.1. Relation between Motivation and Subjective Well-Being (SWB) ....................40

2.6. Festival Satisfaction ................................................................................................41

2.6.1. Relation between Satisfaction and Subjective Well-Being (SWB) ...................43

viii

2.7. Revisit Intention and Word of Mouth (WOM) .......................................................44

CHAPTER 3 .....................................................................................................................46

METHODS .......................................................................................................................46

3.1 Study Site .................................................................................................................46

3.1.1 The Adana City .................................................................................................46

3.1.2 The Orange Blossom Carnival..........................................................................48

3.2 Research Design.......................................................................................................49

3.2.1 Study Population and Sampling Frame ............................................................49

3.2.2 Sampling Size Parameters ................................................................................50

3.3 Survey Instruments and the Measurements of the Concepts ...................................51

3.3.1 Survey Instruments ............................................................................................51

3.3.2 Measurement of the Concepts ...........................................................................51

3.4 Data Collection ........................................................................................................64

3.5 Data Analysis ...........................................................................................................66

CHAPTER 4 .....................................................................................................................70

RESULTS .........................................................................................................................70

4.1 Data Screening .........................................................................................................70

4.1.1 Screening of Multivariate Outliers ...................................................................70

4.1.2 Missing Value Analysis .....................................................................................75

4.2 Descriptive Statistics ................................................................................................76

4.2.1 Demographic Profiles of Respondents..............................................................76

4.2.2 Descriptive Statistics for Festival Experiences.................................................79

4.2.3 Model Construct Descriptives...........................................................................81

4.3 Measurement Models: Confirmatory Factor Analyses ............................................85

4.3.1 Measurement Model for Motivation .................................................................88

4.3.2 Measurement Model for Festival Satisfaction ..................................................98

4.3.3 Measurement Model for Festival Social Impact Attitude ...............................100

4.3.4 Measurement Model for Social Well-being ....................................................111

4.3.5 Measurement Model for Positive Affect and Negative Affect .........................114

4.3.6 Measurement Model for Life Satisfaction .......................................................121

4.3.7 Measurement Model for Revisit Intention and Word-of Mouth ......................123

ix

4.4 Conceptual Structural Model .................................................................................125

4.4.1 Hypotheses Testing .........................................................................................126

CHAPTER 5 ...................................................................................................................128

CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION ...........................................................................128

5.1 Discussion of the Findings and Conclusions .........................................................128

5.2 Practical Implications.............................................................................................134

5.3 Limitations of the Study.........................................................................................135

5.4 Recommendations for Future Research .................................................................136

APPENDICES ................................................................................................................138

APPENDIX A .................................................................................................................139

THE QUESTIONNAIRE ..............................................................................................139

APPENDIX B .................................................................................................................147

THE QUESTIONNAIRE IN TURKISH .....................................................................147

APPENDIX C .................................................................................................................155

BACK TRANSLATION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE .............................................155

APPENDIX D .................................................................................................................165

INFORMATION SHEET FOR THE QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY ......................165

APPENDIX E .................................................................................................................167

INFORMATION SHEET FOR THE QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY (IN TURKISH)

..........................................................................................................................................167

REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................169

x

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2. 1 Differences between Meaning and Happiness Orientations in terms of Life

Purpose and Core Values (Wong, 2011)............................................................................14

Table 2. 2 Studies of Festivals' Effect on Quality of Life/Well-being/Subjective Well-

Being ..................................................................................................................................31

Table 3. 1 Population Distribution of Adana City among Districts in 2018 (Adana

population, n.d.) .................................................................................................................47

Table 3. 2 Number of Tourists Accommodated in Adana for the Years 2013-2018 (Adana

Tourism, 2018) ...................................................................................................................48

Table 3. 3 Festival Motivations Items................................................................................53

Table 3. 4 Festival Satisfaction Items ................................................................................54

Table 3. 5 Festival Social Impact Attitudes Scale (FSIAS) items .....................................56

Table 3. 6 Social Well-being Scale (SWBS) Items ...........................................................58

Table 3. 7 Positive Affect and Negative Affect (PANAS) Scale ......................................61

Table 3. 8 Subjective Well-being Life Satisfaction (SWLS) Items ...................................63

Table 3. 9 Revisit Intention and Word of Mouth Scale (Kim et al., 2017)........................64

Table 3. 10 Summary of the Data Collection Procedure ...................................................66

Table 4.1 Skewness and Kurtosis Values for Motivation Items ........................................72

Table 4.2 Skewness and Kurtosis Values for Satisfaction Items .......................................72

Table 4. 3 Skewness and Kurtosis Values for Perceived Social Impacts Items ................73

Table 4. 4 Skewness and Kurtosis Values for Social Well-being Items ............................73

Table 4. 5 Skewness and Kurtosis Values for Positive and Negative Affects (PANAS)

Items ...................................................................................................................................74

Table 4. 6 Skewness and Kurtosis Values for Life Satisfaction Items ..............................74

Table 4. 7 Skewness and Kurtosis Values for Intention and Word of Mouth Items .........74

Table 4. 8 Frequency Distribution of Respondents by Residency .....................................76

Table 4. 9 Frequency Distribution of Respondents by Gender ..........................................76

Table 4. 10 Frequency Distribution of Respondents by Age .............................................77

Table 4. 11 Frequency Distribution of Respondents by Marital Status .............................77

Table 4. 12 Frequency Distribution of Respondents by Education Level .........................78

Table 4. 13 Frequency Distribution of Respondents by Employment ...............................78

Table 4. 14 Frequency Distribution of Respondents by Income Level .............................79

Table 4. 15 Frequency Distribution of Respondents by Experience of Orange Blossom

Carnival ..............................................................................................................................79

Table 4. 16 Frequency Distribution of Respondents by Experience of Festivals ..............80

Table 4. 17 Frequency Distribution of Respondents by Attending Dates of Festival .......80

Table 4. 18 Frequency Distribution of Respondents by Companion .................................81

Table 4. 19 Frequency Distribution of Respondents by the Type of Participation............81

xi

Table 4. 20 Frequency Distribution of Respondents by the Type of work at the Festival 81

Table 4. 21 Descriptive Statistics for Motivation ..............................................................82

Table 4. 22 Descriptive Statistics for Festival Satisfaction ...............................................82

Table 4. 23 Descriptive Statistics for Perceived Social Impacts of Festival .................8283

Table 4. 24 Descriptive Statistics for Social Well-being ...................................................83

Table 4. 25 Descriptive Statistics for Positive and Negative Affect ..................................84

Table 4. 26 Descriptive Statistics for Life Satisfaction .....................................................84

Table 4. 27 Descriptive Statistics for Revisit Intention and Word of Mouth ....................84

Table 4. 28 Motivation Items .............................................................................................89

Table 4. 29 Goodness of Fit Summary for Socialization ...................................................90

Table 4. 30 Goodness of Fit Summary for Escape and Excitement ..................................91

Table 4. 31 Goodness of Fit Summary for Combined Family Togetherness and Novelty 92

Table 4. 32 Goodness of Fit Summary for the Second Order Measurement Model .........94

Table 4. 33 Measurement Model for Motivation ...............................................................95

Table 4. 34 Factor Correlations for Motivation Construct ................................................96

Table 4. 35 Satisfaction Items ............................................................................................98

Table 4. 36 Goodness of Fit Summary for the Measurement Model for Satisfaction .......99

Table 4. 37 Measurement Model for Satisfaction ............................................................100

Table 4. 38 Festival Social Impact Attitude Scale (FSIAS) Items ..................................101

Table 4. 39 Goodness of Fit Summary for the Measurement Model for Community

Benefits ............................................................................................................................102

Table 4. 40 Goodness of Fit Summary for the Measurement Model for Individual benefits

..........................................................................................................................................103

Table 4. 41 Factor Correlation Matrix for Social Cost ....................................................105

Table 4. 42 KMO and Bartlett's Test for Social Cost ......................................................105

Table 4. 43 Total Variance Explained for Social Cost ....................................................105

Table 4. 44 Goodness-of-fit Test for Social Cost ............................................................106

Table 4. 45 Factor Matrix for Social Cost .......................................................................106

Table 4. 46 Goodness of Fit Summary for the Measurement Model for Combined Social

Cost and Overcrowding ...................................................................................................107

Table 4. 47 Measurement Model for Festival Social Impact Attitude .............................111

Table 4. 48 Factor Correlations for Festival Social Impact Attitude Construct ..............111

Table 4. 49 Social Well-being Items ................................................................................113

Table 4. 50 Goodness of Fit Summary for the Measurement Model for Social Well-being

..........................................................................................................................................113

Table 4. 51 Measurement Model for Social Well-being ..................................................114

Table 4. 52 Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS) Items ....................................115

Table 4. 53 Goodness of Fit Summary for the Measurement Model for Positive Affect 116

Table 4. 54 Goodness of Fit Summary for the Measurement Model for Negative Affect

..........................................................................................................................................117

xii

Table 4. 55 Goodness of Fit Summary for the Measurement Model for the Second Order

Positive and Negative Affect ...........................................................................................119

Table 4. 56 Measurement Model for Positive and Negative Affect ................................121

Table 4. 57 Factor Correlations for Positive and Negative Affect ..................................121

Table 4. 58 Life Satisfaction Items ..................................................................................122

Table 4. 59 Goodness of Fit Summary for the Measurement Model for Life Satisfaction

..........................................................................................................................................123

Table 4. 60 Measurement Model for Life Satisfaction ....................................................123

Table 4. 61 Revisit Intention and Word-of Mouth Items.................................................124

Table 4. 62 Goodness of Fit Summary for the Combined Measurement Model for Revisit

Intention and Word of Mouth ..........................................................................................124

Table 4. 63 Combined Measurement Model for Revisit Intention and Word of Mouth .125

Table 4. 64 Results of the Full Structural Model .............................................................125

Table 4. 65 Hypotheses Testing .......................................................................................126

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2. 1 Three Primary Factors Influencing the Chronic Happiness Level

(Lyubomksky et al., 2005). ................................................................................................15

Figure 2. 2 A Simple Model of Subjective Well-being (OECD, 2013) .............................17

Figure 2. 3 Conceptual Model Linking Leisure to Subjective Well-being (Newman et al.,

2014) ..................................................................................................................................24

Figure 2. 4 A Benefits Theory of Leisure Well-Being (Sirgy et al., 2017) .......................25

Figure 3. 1 Map of Turkey (Google, n.d.) .........................................................................47

Figure 3. 2 Data Collection Sites .......................................................................................66

Figure 4. 1 First Order CFA Model for Socialization ........................................................90

Figure 4. 2 First Order CFA Model for Escape and Excitement .......................................92

Figure 4. 3 First Order CFA Model for Combined Family Togetherness and Novelty .....93

Figure 4. 4 Second Order CFA Model for Motivation ......................................................97

Figure 4. 5 CFA Model for Satisfaction ............................................................................99

Figure 4. 6 CFA Model for Community Benefits ............................................................102

Figure 4. 7 CFA Model for Individual Benefits ..............................................................103

Figure 4. 8 First-Order CFA Model for Combined Social Cost and Overcrowding .......107

Figure 4. 9 Initial Second Order CFA Model for Festival Social Impact Attitude ..........109

Figure 4. 10 Final Second Order CFA Model for Festival Social Impact Attitude .........110

Figure 4. 11 CFA model for Social Well-being ...............................................................113

Figure 4. 12 CFA Model for Positive Affect ...................................................................116

Figure 4. 13 CFA Model for Negative Affect..................................................................118

Figure 4. 14 Second Order CFA Model for Positive and Negative Affect ......................120

Figure 4. 15 CFA Model for Life Satisfaction .................................................................122

Figure 4. 16 Combined CFA Model for Intention and Word of Mouth ..........................124

Figure 4. 17 Structural Model Showing Significant and Insignificant Relationships .....127

Figure 4. 18 Structural Model Showing Only Significant Relationships ........................127

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The staging of festivals is an old social phenomenon. All over the world, people

have always been celebrating and honoring something related to their cultures with events

such as festivals, market fairs, and harvest celebrations (Douglas & Derrett, 2001). In past

times, festivals were providing chance to experience things which is different from

everyday life and for communal gatherings and collective wishes through art, ritual, and

fiesta (Earls, 1993). The root of this type of public celebration can be traced back to the

carnival of Europe (Arcodia & Whitford, 2007). Originally, festivals were held for the

benefits of the local community and not tourists (Getz, 1989). Religion, harvesting and

honoring someone were among the main reasons for staging a festival (Douglas & Derrett,

2001). Thus, festivals were seeking the social benefits of a society and not economic

benefits. In contrast, today most of the festivals are utilized as a marketing tool and

primarily focus on the economic benefits. Although most of the festivals have been created

for economic purposes, festivals still have great positive social impact on people (Arcodia

& Whitford, 2007).

In recent years, the number of festivals and special events is growing tremendously

(Crompton, McKay & Society, 1997; Getz &Reinhold, 1991; Gursoy, Kim, & Uysal,

2004). Festival tourism is developing worldwide since it has significant economic, socio-

cultural, and political contributions to local society (Arcodia & Whitford, 2007). Festivals

and special events have a significant role in communities’ lives (Gursoy, Kim, & Uysal,

2

2004). “Communities without ancient traditions and festivals to celebrate, are often

motivated to create them for the purpose of establishing traditions and providing a sense

of roots.” (Getz, 2008, pg. 53). Festivals can help local communities to strengthen their

sense of identities as well as preserving traditional cultures (Buch, Milne & Dickson, 2011;

McKercher, Mei, & Tse, 2006). Festivals may also be a way for migrant communities to

enhance their sense of identity. A festival is an important vehicle for a community to

declare their identity and culture to “outsiders” (McMorland & Mactaggart, 2007). Besides

enhancing local pride and community spirit in culture and enhance community image,

festivals provide recreational activities and spending markets for locals and tourists (Lee,

Lee & Wicks, 2004) and it also improves the relationship between host and guest (Getz &

Reinhold, 1991).

Festivals can also create positive significant impact on both the residents and

visitors subjective well-being (SWB) (Packer & Ballantyne, 2011; Yolal, Gursoy & Uysal,

2016). Despite the substantial literature on the association between leisure, recreation,

tourism, travel and SWB, there are only few studies concerning festivals’ positive impacts

on SWB (Kruger, Rootenberg, & Ellis, 2013; Mellor et al., 2012; Packer & Ballantyne,

2011; Yolal et al., 2016). It is hoped that this study would contribute to the limited

understanding of festivals’ effect on SWB of festival attendees.

Many cities and towns in Turkey are increasingly organizing festivals to improve

their local economy by attracting more visitors and investment to the area; to enhance city

images; to stimulate urban development, and to keep Anatolian culture alive (Yolal,

Çetinel, & Uysal, 2009). Current study looked at an example of a festival in Turkey – The

3

International Orange Blossom Carnival which was held on April 5-8, 2018. The

International Orange Blossom Carnival is an annual festival, which held each early April

in Adana, Turkey. April is the blossom season of citrus trees in Adana and this festival is

inspired by the scent of those trees covers most of the parts of the city during the season. It

is one of the first annual carnivals in Turkey. The festival has these slogans, which promote

the sense of unity among the society, “In April in Adana” and "Let's meet in Adana in April

for love, peace and friendship". The festival attracts thousands of people from different

cities of Turkey to Adana city. More than one hundred activities are organized in this event

including concerts, folk dancing shows, theatre, photo art exhibitions and a street parade

where people wear fancy dresses to make a colorful and energetic start to the festival. Since

it is a newborn event, there is a very limited information and research about the festival

(Karaca, Yildirim & Cakici, 2017; Birdir, Toksoz & Bak, 2016; Birdir, Toksoz & Birdir,

2018; Yildirim, Karaca & Cakici, 2016). In this respect, this study also can provide

important baseline information for the festival organizers, decision makers and local

businesses.

1.1. Problem Statement

Festivals provide numerous benefits for societies. For instance they enhance

destinations’ image of both residents and visitors, therefore they are very useful marketing

tools to promote the destinations and their attractions and generate positive community

image (Fredline & Faulkner, 2000; Yolal et al., 2016). They have a great impact on

boosting local economy through tax revenues, increased employment and business

opportunities through increased visitor arrivals, expanded tourist season, and extended

4

length of stay and expenditures (Yolal et al., 2009). They also have positive social impacts

on local communities such as increasing the community attachment of residents (Lau &

Li, 2015) and strengthening community ties with past or existing culture which help to

preserve local culture (Bagiran & Kurgun, 2013). Beyond generating all the economic and

social benefits and opportunities, festivals are likely to create positive significant impact

on both the residents’ and visitors’ subjective well-being (SWB) (Jepson & Stadler, 2017;

Packer & Ballantyne, 2011; Yolal et al., 2016).

Positive SWB is necessary for having a healthy society, thus enhancing individual’s

well-being is a main goal for all modern societies and their constituents such as local

governments, universities, hospitals and churches (Chen, Lehto, & Cai, 2013; Yolal et al.,

2016). SWB has benefits not only for individuals but also for societies, thus it should be

promoted among all citizens. A recent study, looking at the relationships between event

attendance and family Quality of life (QOL), stated that QOL research has been well

studied in medicine, psychology, and the social sciences, however it has not received

enough attention within festival and event studies (Jepson & Stadler, 2017). Accordingly,

the literature review for this study found a significant gap in understanding festivals’

impact on subjective well-being of attendees.

1.2. Research Purpose and Objectives


tourism, travel and SWB, there are only few studies concerning festivals’ positive impacts

on SWB (Kruger, Rootenberg, & Ellis, 2013; Mellor et al., 2012; Packer & Ballantyne,

2011; Yolal et al., 2016). The purpose of the current study was to fill the gap and contribute

5

to the limited understanding of the impacts of festivals on subjective well-being of

attendees.

The study had three objectives. The first objective was to examine the impacts of

the festival attendance on participants’ social well-being and subjective well-being. The

second one was to see how festival satisfaction, festival motivations and perceived social

impacts of the festival affect social well-being and subjective well-being. And the third one

was to investigate whether enhanced social well-being and subjective well-being positively

affects the revisit intention and word of mouth, showing the possibility of visitors to make

future repeat visits and to influence others in their decision-making processes.

1.3. Research Questions and Hypotheses

The conceptual model of this study includes eight research questions and twenty-

four hypotheses. To achieve the objectives of the study, the researcher asked the following

research questions and proposed the following hypotheses (Figure 1.1).

RQ1. Is there any significant association between Festival Satisfaction and Well-Being of

the participants (Subjective Well-Being and Social Well-Being)?

H1a. There is a significant positive relationship between Festival Satisfaction and

Positive Affect.

H1b. There is a significant negative relationship between Festival Satisfaction and

Negative Affect.

H1c. There is a significant positive relationship between Festival Satisfaction and

Life Satisfaction.

6

H1d. There is a significant positive relationship between Festival Satisfaction and

Social Well-being.

RQ2. Is there any significant association between Motivation and Well-Being of the

participants (Subjective Well-Being and Social Well-Being)?

H2a. There is a significant positive relationship between Motivation and Positive

Affect.

H2b. There is a significant negative relationship between Motivation and Negative

Affect.

H2c. There is a significant positive relationship between Motivation and Life

Satisfaction.

H2d. There is a significant positive relationship between Motivation and Social

Well-being.

RQ3. Is there any significant association between Perceived Positive Social Impacts of the

Festival and Well-Being of the participants (Subjective Well-Being and Social Well-

Being)?

H3a. There is a significant positive relationship between the Perceived Positive

Social Impacts of the Festival and Positive Affect.

H3b. There is a significant negative relationship between Perceived Positive Social

Impacts of the Festival and Negative Affect.

H3c. There is a significant positive relationship between Perceived Positive Social

Impacts of the Festival and Life Satisfaction.

7

H3d. There is a significant positive relationship between Perceived Positive Social

Impacts of the Festival and Social Well-being.

RQ4. Is there any significant association between Perceived Negative Social Impacts

(Social Costs) of the Festival and Well-Being of the participants (Subjective Well-Being

and Social Well-Being)?

H4a. There is a significant negative relationship between the Perceived Social Costs

of the Festival and Positive Affect.

H4b. There is a significant positive relationship between Perceived Social Costs of

the Festival and Negative Affect.

H4c. There is a significant negative relationship between Perceived Social Costs of

the Festival and Life Satisfaction.

H4d. There is a significant negative relationship between Perceived Social Costs of

the Festival and Social Well-being.

RQ5. Is there any significant association between Positive Affect and Revisit Intention and

Word of Mouth?

H5a. There is a significant positive relationship between Positive Affect and Revisit

Intention.

H5b. There is a significant positive relationship between Positive Affect and Word

of Mouth.

RQ6. Is there any significant association between Negative Affect and Revisit Intention

and Word of Mouth?

8

H6a. There is a significant negative relationship between Negative Affect and

Revisit Intention.

H6b. There is a significant negative relationship between Positive Affect and Word

of Mouth.

RQ7. Is there any significant association between Life Satisfaction and Revisit Intention

and Word of Mouth?

H7a. There is a significant positive relationship between Life Satisfaction and

Revisit Intention.

H7b. There is a significant positive relationship between Life Satisfaction and Word

of Mouth.

RQ8. Is there any significant association between Social Wellbeing and Revisit Intention

and Word of Mouth?

H8a. There is a significant positive relationship between Social Wellbeing and

Revisit Intention.

H8b. There is a significant positive relationship between Social Wellbeing and

Word of Mouth.

1.4. Definition of Terms

Festival Motivation: “A motive is an internal factor that arouses, directs, and

integrates a person’s behavior” (Iso-Ahola, 1980, pg. 230). Festival motivations are the

reasons for why people visit festivals. This study includes the following sub-factors for

motivation: Socialization, escape and excitement, family togetherness and event novelty.

9

Festival Satisfaction: Satisfaction has been used as a basic parameter to evaluate

the performance of tourism products and services (Yoon & Uysal, 2005). Wu, Wong and

Cheng (2014) defines visitor satisfaction measurement as “an evaluation of the quality of

destination performance, where visitors are satisfied not only with what they experience;

namely, how they were treated and served at a destination, but also how they felt during

the service encounter” (pg. 1280). This study assesses the overall satisfaction of festival

attendees based on their experiences in festival.

Perceived Social Impacts of Festival: Festivals offer variety of benefits for societies

such as economic benefits, social benefits, cultural benefits and so on (Andersson & Getz,

2008). On the other hand, they also create negative impacts, for example: environmental

impacts (e.g. litter), inflation in prices of goods and services, traffic congestion and parking

problems due to crowd in streets (Bagiran & Kurgun, 2013; Gursoy, Kim, & Uysal, 2004).

This study is looking at perceived social impacts of festival which contains community

benefits (e.g. enhancing image of the community), individual benefits (e.g. providing

opportunities for people to experience new activities) and social costs (e.g. overcrowding).

Social Well-being: Keyes (1998) defines social well-being as “the appraisal of

one’s circumstance and functioning in society” (pg.122). The study contains five

dimensions of social well-being (Keyes, 1998): 1) social integration (individuals’

evaluation of the quality of their relationship with society); 2) social acceptance (trusting

others, having favorable opinions of human nature and feeling comfortable with others);

3) social contribution (the appraisal of one’s social value, feeling of being a vital member

of the society, with something of value to give to the world); 4) social actualization (the

10

evaluation of the potentials of society); 5) social coherence (psychologically healthier

individuals see life more meaningful and coherent).

Subjective Well-being: Subjective well-being is wider than simply happiness; it

represents a diverse group of indicators commonly used to measure how positively a person

makes cognitive (e.g., satisfactions, values, aspirations) and affective (e.g., happiness)

evaluations about her or his life experiences (Gilbert & Abdullah, 2002a; Paulhus, 1984;

Peck, 2001; Tanksale, 2015; Taylor, Chatters, Hardison, & Riley, 2001). High subjective

well-being reports were obtained when people experience high positive affect (e.g.

energetic and delighted), a low rate of negative affect (e.g. sadness and fatigue), and when

they evaluate their general lives in a positive manner overall (“I am happy and satisfied

with my life”) (Ng et al., 2003).

Revisit Intention: Based on Ajzen’s (1991) behavioral intention definition, revisit

intention indicates how strong people are willing to visit a destination again in the future

and how much effort they plan to exert in order to revisit the destination, which is under

volitional control.

Word of Mouth: Chiang, Xu, Kim, Tang, & Manthiou (2017) defines Word of

Mouth (WOM) as “informal communication about the attributes of a product or service

that occurs among consumers” (pg.782). This study is interested in positive word of mouth

as an outcome variable (e.g. talking positively to other people about the festival).

11

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter reviews literature on subjective well-being, social well-being, social

impacts of festival, festival satisfaction and motivation, and revisit intention. The review

of related literature involves the constructs and theories that may support relationships

between the constructs. Based on the literature review, twenty-four hypotheses were

developed.

2.1. Importance of Festivals

The contribution of festivals to leisure industry has increasingly grown in the past

couple of decades, concurrently academic interest on this field has been increased

(Crompton, McKay, & Society, 1997; Li & Petrick, 2005; Yang, Gu, & Cen, 2011).

Different cities worldwide have been creating festivals by utilizing existing resources for

boosting their local economy. Festivals contribute to local economies by tax revenues,

increased employment and business opportunities through increased visitor arrivals,

expanded tourist season, and extended length of stay and expenditures (Yolal et al., 2009).

Accordingly, many scholars have been interested in analyzing economic impact of festivals

(Bracalente et al., 2011; Brown, Var, & Lee, 2002; Grunwell, Ha, & Swanger, 2011;

Tohmo, 2005). Festivals can also help to enhance destinations’ image of both residents and

visitors; therefore, they are very useful marketing tools to promote the destinations and

their attractions and generate positive community image (Fredline & Faulkner, 2000; Yolal

et al., 2016).

12

Although festival organizers, local governments and businesses have been

interested primarily in the opportunity of gaining a good financial return on invested

resources for staging the festival (Bagiran & Kurgun, 2013; Brown et al., 2002; Crompton

et al., 1997; Gursoy et al., 2004; Mayfield & Crompton, 1995), there are many other

remarkable benefits of festivals for local communities and also for tourists. First, festivals

provide an atmosphere for people to gather, and offer family based recreational activities

which enhance social interactions and relationships (Yolal et al., 2016). By reinforcing the

togetherness of people, festivals serve to build social cohesion within a community (Yolal

et al., 2009). In addition to providing a social arena for the local community, festivals also

assign variety of roles for those people. A resident may be volunteer, performer, festival

organizer, promoter and/or just spectator. Through these roles, local residents enhance their

skills and talents, enrich their lives and are proud of being a part of the community (Getz,

2008). Festivals not only increase the community attachment of residents (Lau & Li, 2015)

but also strengthen community ties with past or existing culture which help to preserve

local culture (Bagiran & Kurgun, 2013). In addition to having positive economic and social

impacts on local communities, festivals also generate benefits for tourists by providing

cultural and educational experience that they seek, such as seeing a variety of cultural

displays, eating traditional foods of other cultures, and participating in cultural games or

performances (Lee, Arcodia, & Lee, 2012). Festivals can also improve relationships

between hosts and guests and enhance understanding among them since festivals provide

atmosphere for cultural exchange between them (Besculides, Lee, & McCormick, 2002).

Furthermore, beyond generating all these benefits and opportunities, festivals are likely to

13

create positive significant impacts on both the residents and visitors subjective well-being

(Packer & Ballantyne, 2011; Yolal et al., 2016).

2.2. Subjective Well-Being (SWB)

Throughout history, philosophers and scientists have desired to understand

happiness as a fundamental human drive (Oishi et al., 2013). Aristotle said that “happiness

is the only emotion that humans desire for its own sake” in Nicomachean Ethics written in

350 B.C.E (Tasnim, 2016, pg.64). In his opinion, men seek wealth, honor or health in order

to be happy.

The literature mentions the two types of happiness: Hedonic enjoyment and

eudaimonia (Ng et al., 2003). Hedonic happiness is associated with pleasure achieved

through the satisfaction of preferences and desires, and closely linked to positive emotions

and a sense of being carefree (Wong, 2011). Based on Kahneman, Diener and Schwarz

(1999), Wong (2011) defined hedonic well-being as “evaluating one’s life as satisfying and

containing a high rate of positive affect and low rate of negative affect” and he added “what

immediately comes to mind is the kind of life that emphasizes ‘eat, drink, and be merry’

or the hedonic treadmill” (pg. 70). The hedonic enjoyment was enlightened by the

philosophical utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham and classical philosophers like Aristippus

of Cyrene and Epicurus (de Vos, Schwanen, van Acker, & Witlox, 2013). In contemporary

research, Subjective Well-being (SWB) studies by Diener (Diener, 2009, 2013) and the

work of Daniel Kahneman (Kahneman, Diener, & Schwarz, 1999) well inform us about

hedonic happiness.

14

Eudaimonic ideas criticize the hedonic stance, and argue that not all pleasures or

satisfaction of a desire achieve happiness. Eudaimonia was built on Aristotle’s writings

and it refers to a life lived to its fullest potential (Steger, Kashdan, & Oishi, 2008).

Eudaimonia is related to self-realization, developing one’s potential, meaning and purpose

of life, personal growth and ‘flourishing’(Huta & Ryan, 2010). Wong (2011) identified the

differences between Eudaimonic (meaning) and Hedonic (happiness) orientations in terms

of life purpose and core values (Table 2.1.).

Table 2. 1 Differences between Meaning and Happiness Orientations in terms of Life

Purpose and Core Values (Wong, 2011).

Meaning Orientation Happiness Orientation

1. Actualizing meaning& purpose 1. Optimizing positive experiences

2. Primarily interested in eudaimonic&

chaironic well-being

2. Primarily interested in hedonic and prudential

well-being

3. Pursuing worthy ideas, even at personal

costs

3. Pursuing worldly success and avoiding pain

and sacrifice

4. Concerned with how to live a life good in

all respect 4. Concerned with what will make me happiest

5. Concerned with satisfaction with one's

life as a whole

5. Concerned with feeling happy moment by

moment

6. More interested in nurturing the inner life

and inner peace& joy

6. More interested in external sources of

happiness

According to Lyubomksky, Sheldon and Schkade (2005), most of the studies in

happiness literature suggest that there are three primary factors affecting the chronic

happiness level (a) life circumstances, (b) a genetically determined setpoint, and (c)

intentional activity. Genetics accounts for 50 percent of the variance in an individual’s

SWB and it is thought to be fixed and stable over one’s lifetime (Tellegen et al., 1988).

Life circumstances account for approximately 10 percent of the variance, which comprises

of factors such as age, education, income, employment, marriage, and religion (Argyle,

15

1999). Intentional activities which are flexible, self-congruent, self-determined,

intrinsically appealing, and socially supported account for 40 percent of the variance in

SWB, promising the best opportunity for enhancing happiness (Lyubomksky et al., 2005).

Figure 2. 1 Three Primary Factors Influencing the Chronic Happiness Level

(Lyubomksky et al., 2005).

The discipline of studying subjective well-being started in the early twentieth

century, and it has flourished with the growing material abundance in Western countries

that carries people to seek beyond basic needs (Lv & Xie, 2017). “Subjective well-being

research has begun to provide an important complement to one of psychology's traditional

goals: the understanding of unhappiness or ill-being in the form of depression, anxiety, and

unpleasant emotions” (Pavot & Diener, 1993, pg. 164). Subjective well-being is wider than

simply happiness; it represents a diverse group of indicators commonly used to measure

how positively a person makes cognitive (e.g., satisfactions, values, aspirations) and

affective (e.g., happiness) evaluations about her or his life experiences (Gilbert &

Abdullah, 2002a; Paulhus, 1984; Peck, 2001; Tanksale, 2015; Taylor et al., 2001). High

subjective well-being reports were obtained when people experience high positive affect

16

(e.g. energetic and delighted), a low rate of negative affect (e.g. sadness and fatigue), and

when they evaluate their general lives in a positive manner overall (“I am happy and

satisfied with my life”) (Ng et al., 2003).

Life satisfaction and happiness are the most common measures of subjective well-

being in the literature. Even though these two measures are positively correlated, as

mentioned they represent different components of subjective well-being. Life satisfaction

is involved in how people remember things and think about life, while happiness is related

to how people experience life (Ivlevs, 2017). Their relationships with other variables also

show some differences. For instance, while life satisfaction generally has a positive

correlation with education, the relationship between education and happiness is less clear

(Ivlevs, 2017).

Recently, subjective well-being has been widely utilized by researchers and policy

makers especially in advanced liberal democracies because of the identified weak relations

between objective circumstances (e.g. wealth) and levels of happiness (McCabe &

Johnson, 2013). In 2013, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development

(OECD) released its Guidelines on Measuring Subjective Well-being. The Guidelines

mentioned that since it is increasingly recognised it is important to go beyond monetary

measures, such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP), in measuring the progress of societies.

Subjective well-being can be a more meaningful way of evaluating development, social

progress and government policy than GDP. The Guidelines have utilized subjective well-

being which cover three measures: life evaluations (a reflective assessment on a person’s

life or some aspect of it, such as life satisfaction); affect (a person’s feelings or emotional

17

states); and eudaimonia (a sense of meaning and purpose in life or good psychological

functioning) (Figure 2.2).

Figure 2. 2 A Simple Model of Subjective Well-being (OECD, 2013)

Lyubomksky et al. (2005) stated that “enhancing people’s happiness levels may

indeed be a worthy scientific goal, especially after their basic physical and security needs

are met” (pg.112). It is important to understand what contributes well-being because lower

perceptions of well-being have been connected to depression, stress, anxiety, anger, poor

inhibition of impulse, guilt proneness, psychosomatic concerns, and worry (Costa &

McCrae, 1980). On the other hand enhanced well-being is associated with higher levels of

happiness and life satisfaction (Steger, Frazier, Oishi, & Kaler, 2006). Moreover, as people

with high-levels of SWB are more likely to be flourishing people, both inwardly and

outwardly (Lyubomksky et al., 2005), they tend to have better social relationships,

altruism, liking of self and others, greater self-control and self-regulatory and coping

abilities, fulfilling marriages and friendships, greater involvement in one’s community,

strong bodies and immune systems, work success and effective conflict resolution skills,

and they contribute more to societal development (Cini, Kruger, & Ellis, 2013; Kuykendall,

Tay, & Ng, 2015; Lyubomirsky, King, & Diener, 2005). Positive SWB is necessary for

having a healthy society, thus enhancing individual’s well-being is a main goal of all

18

modern societies and their constituents such as local governments, universities, hospitals

and churches (Chen, Lehto, & Cai, 2013; Yolal et al., 2016). SWB has benefits not only

for individuals but also for societies, thus it should be promoted among all citizens.

2.2.1. Theoretical Framework

The three philosophical concepts of happiness are: hedonic well-being, life

satisfaction, and eudaimonia (Sirgy, 2012). Hedonic well-being which is also called as

psychological happiness is related to feelings of joy, serenity and affection (Sirgy &Uysal,

2016). Hedonic well-being is achieved when a person has “a high rate of positive affect

and low rate of negative affect”, it is measured by looking at the difference between the

sum of positive affect (such as joy, contentment and pleasure) and negative affect (such as

sadness, anxiety, and depression). In contrast with the nature of hedonic well-being, life

satisfaction is a more complex concept. To achieve life satisfaction “prudential happiness”

hedonic well-being is not enough, a high state of wellbeing, both mentally and physically

is necessary (Sirgy& Uysal, 2016). Subjective Wellbeing is usually used as the

combination of cognitive evaluation (being satisfied or dissatisfied with life) and affective

experience (feelings) (Rojas & Veenhoven, 2013).

Affect theory advocate that happiness is a reflection of how well individuals

generally feel. ‘In this view we do not 'calculate' happiness, but rather 'infer' it, the typical

heuristic being, “I feel good most of the time hence I must be happy"’ (Rojas & Veenhoven,

2013, pg.419). This view does not refer to life as a whole as cognitive theory, and the

affective ratings that are used to assess happiness do not refer to specific object (Şimşek,

2009). Accordingly, the construction of the Positive and Negative Affect Scales (Watson,

19

Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) is concerned with the frequency of experiencing these feelings,

not the feelings about one’s own life.

On the other hand, cognitive theories argue that happiness is a product of human

thinking and individuals’ judgments concerning their own lives (Diener, Emmons, Larsen,

& Griffin, 1985). Cognitive view of happiness reflects the difference between the

perceptions of “life-as-it-is” and notions of “how-life-should-be”(Rojas & Veenhoven,

2013). Judgements of how life should be are assumed to be “constructed” in the social

discourse and it is expected to change across cultures.

While hedonic well-being is generally referred as pleasure, eudaimonic well-being

is related to self-realization, developing one’s potential, meaning and purpose of life,

personal growth and ‘flourishing’ (Huta & Ryan, 2010). Eudaimonia was built on

Aristotle’s writings and it refers to a life lived to its fullest potential (Steger, Kashdan, &

Oishi, 2008). Huta and Waterman (2014) reviewed the work of scholars on eudaimonia

and the distinction between eudaimonia and hedonia, and they found that there are four

common elements of eudaimonia: 1) growth (reaching one's potential and full-

functioning), 2) authenticity (existential notions, such as identity, autonomy, integrity and

personal expressiveness), 3) meaning (meaning of experiences, meaning of life) and 4)

excellence (the best within us, and the virtue for the full development of our potentials).

Some theoretical models cover both hedonic and eudaemonic well-being. For

instance, Seligman (2011) proposed the PERMA Model, according to the model there are

five pathways considered the best calculation of what individuals pursue for their own sake

and a signal of positive feeling as well as functioning: (1) positive emotion, (2)

20

engagement, (3) meaning, (4) positive relationships and (5) accomplishment. Similar to the

PERMA model, within a leisure context, DRAMMA model was proposed by Newman,

Tay, & Diener (2014). According to the theory (1) detachment-recovery, (2) autonomy, (3)

mastery, (4) meaning and (5) affiliation are the five psychological mechanisms’ that may

arise during a leisure experience and contribute to subjective well-being. The DRAMMA

model is a bottom-up theory of SWB, meaning that there are basic and universal human

needs and if one can meet these needs then it can be argued that engaging in leisure

activities can be associated with higher levels of SWB (Kuykendall, Tay, & Ng, 2015).

Recently, Sirgy, Uysal and Kruger (2017) offered a more detailed bottom-up spillover

model which shows the relation between leisure and subjective wellbeing. They built the

model on the five psychological mechanisms which was identified by Newman et al.

(2014), and introduced 12 needs which are related to benefits of leisure: basic needs (safety,

health, economic, hedonic, escape, sensation seeking) and growth needs (symbolic,

aesthetics, morality, mastery, relatedness, and distinctiveness). A Benefits Theory of

Leisure Well-Being suggests that a leisure activity can contribute to leisure well-being

when it fulfills those 12 basic needs. Moreover, Sirgy et al. (2017) argue that “satisfaction

with leisure life (or the sense of leisure well-being) contributes directly to subjective well-

being” (p.207).

There are some concerns associated with bottom-up and top-down theories of

SWB, because causal direction in subjective well-being research has been a fundamental

problem (Headey, Veenhoven, & Wearing, 1991). Even though most of the research is

interested in representing the causes subjective well-being, the variables described as

21

causes can be just correlates of SWB or consequences, or perhaps both causes and

consequences (Headey et al., 1991). Therefore, this study avoided using causal words while

constructing the hypothesis.

2.2.2. Relation between Leisure Engagement and Subjective Well-Being (SWB)

Leisure engagement and subjective well-being are strongly associated, in fact their

terminology is hard to define. There are numbers of definitions of leisure because its

meaning varies from person to person and culture to culture. The term leisure was derived

from a Latin word licere which means to be free (Edginton et al., 1995). The term leisure

has started to be seen in America Society after 1940 (Cordes & Ibrahim, 1999). Many

languages even do not have a synonym for leisure or their discourse has developed in a

different way where leisure is not the central concept (Scarrott, 2009). Today, it is possible

to see at least the eight ways of defining leisure: Leisure as an activity, as a time, as a state

of mind, as a quality of action, as a social construction, as a social instrument, as an anti-

utilitarian concept, and as a part of holistic process. And, to identify these definitions

several factors are used such as: freedom, perceived competence, intrinsic motivation and

positive affect (Edginton et al., 1995).

Like many other Greek philosophers, Aristotle argue that leisure experiences are

the most important determinants of pleasure and happiness (Owens, 1981). Today, many

scholars across different disciplines – such as psychology, sociology, recreation studies,

and hospitality and tourism management agree that leisure is one of the highest facilitators

of happiness and has positive effects on people’s physical and mental well-being (Adams,

Leibbrandt, & Moon, 2011; Caldwell, 2005; Cini et al., 2013; Csikszentmihalyi & Lefevre,

22

1989; Godbey, 2009; Iso-Ahola & Park, 1996; Kuykendall et al., 2015; Newman, Tay, &

Diener, 2014; Shin & You, 2013).

Intentional activities which are flexible, self-congruent, self-determined,

intrinsically appealing, and socially supported account for 40 percent of the variance in

SWB (Lyubomksky et al., 2005). The characteristics of intentional activities are very

similar to the features often ascribed to leisure experiences (Walker & Ito, 2017).

Accordingly, many studies have shown that SWB positively correlates with different

aspects of leisure, such as engaging in arts, sport, culture (Caddick & Smith, 2014; Godbey,

2009; Wheatley & Bickerton, 2017), listening to music (Linnemann, Ditzen, Strahler,

Doerr, & Nater, 2015; Rickard, 2012), out-of-home activities, travel (Ettema, Gärling,

Olsson, & Friman, 2010), and serious leisure activities (Heo, Lee, McCormick, &

Pedersen, 2010) have also seen as important contributors to happiness.

Leisure promotes well-being by providing opportunities for recreation, relaxation,

fun, entertainment, detachment and recovery from stress including work related pressures,

self-improvement, social interaction and so on (Gilbert & Abdullah, 2002a). Leisure

activities provide opportunities for self-determined behaviors, the two salient

characteristics of leisure - intrinsic motivation (when people engage in activity because of

the enjoyment in itself) and perceived freedom (when people freely choose to engage in

activity) enhance SWB (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Kuykendall et al., 2015; Ryan & Deci, 2000).

According to the Self-Determination Theory (SDT) (Deci & Ryan, 1985) individuals are

curious, vital and self-motivated (Ryan & Deci, 2000). The theory characterizes intrinsic

motivations with the highest level of self-determination which is associated with enhanced

23

SWB (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Even though intrinsic motivation and perceived freedom were

identified as important factors leading to enhanced SWB, there are also some other reasons

that can influence SWB such as fulfillment of the psychological needs (Kuykendall et al.,

2015; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000) argues that

autonomy, competence, and relatedness are the three psychological needs promoting

psychological well-being. Some other theories such as need theory (Maslow, 1943)

dimensions of psychological well-being (Ryff & Keyes, 1995) and flow theory

(Csikszentmihalyi, 1991) also identified different psychological needs and they emphasize

the importance of the fulfillment of those needs for personal well-being.

Newman et al. (2014) reviewed 363 peer reviewed articles and book chapters

examining the relationships between SWB and leisure. He also developed a model which

is called DRAMMA model showing that there are five psychological needs that can be

satisfied by engaging in leisure activities. The five core psychological mechanisms that

leisure potentially induce to promote global subjective well-being identified by Newman

et al. (2014) are: (1) detachment- recovery (2) autonomy, (3) mastery, (4) meaning, and (5)

affiliation. The DRAMMA model is a bottom-up theory of SWB, meaning that there are

basic and universal human needs and if one can meet these needs then it can be argued that

engaging in leisure activities can be associated with higher levels of SWB (Kuykendall et

al., 2015).

24

Figure 2. 3 Conceptual Model Linking Leisure to Subjective Well-being (Newman et al.,

2014)

Recently Sirgy, Uysal and Kruger (2017) offered a more detailed bottom-up

spillover model which shows the relation between leisure and subjective wellbeing. They

built the model on the five psychological mechanisms which was identified by Newman et

al. (2014) (Figure 2.3) and introduced 12 needs which are related to benefits of leisure:

basic needs (safety, health, economic, hedonic, escape, sensation seeking) and growth

needs (symbolic, aesthetics, morality, mastery, relatedness, and distinctiveness) (Figure

25

2.4). A Benefits Theory of Leisure Well-Being suggests that a leisure activity can

contribute to leisure well-being when it fulfills those 12 basic needs.

Figure 2. 4 A Benefits Theory of Leisure Well-Being (Sirgy et al., 2017)

2.2.3. Relation between Tourism and Subjective Well-Being (SWB)

Tourism as a form of leisure, is free from unpleasant obligations, possibly

contribute to individuals’ happiness in several ways. Recent research in tourism field has

26

enhanced our understanding about the effects of tourism experiences on tourist’s

psychological states beyond well-documented issues such as motivation and satisfaction

(McCabe & Johnson, 2013). In the last decade, many studies had examined the relation

between tourism and happiness, subjective well-being (SWB) and quality of life (QOL)

(e.g. Chen, Huang, & Petrick, 2016; Filep, 2012; Kim et al., 2015b; McCabe & Johnson,

2013; Pyke, Hartwell, Blake, & Hemingway, 2016).

For the distinctiveness and competitiveness of the tourist destinations, it is

important to create memorable experiences for tourists which are associated with positive

emotions (Knobloch, Robertson, & Aitken, 2017). Hedonic enjoyment has been seen as a

crucial factor affecting tourist satisfaction and their future behavior (Kim, Ritchie, & Tung,

2010). Recently, this view has been criticized because not all memorable experiences are

driven by hedonic enjoyment. Until the last decade research has largely ignored the

importance of the subjective meaning of the experience (Knobloch et al., 2017). Tourism

activities can also contribute the eudaimonic well-being which is associated to personal

growth and development through feelings of being inspired, fulfilled, experiencing

competence and mastery in variety of life domains (Knobloch, Robertson, & Aitken, 2014).

Therefore, a combination of both hedonic enjoyment and eudaimonia can greatly enhance

the well-being of tourists.

“It is good to be a tourist—this is after all why we spend money and time to become

one”(Kozaryn & Strzelecka, 2017, pg. 790). Engaging in tourism can influence well-being,

and quality of life since tourism services offers variety of benefits that can satisfy variety

of life domains as found by Sirgy (2010) including leisure and recreation, travel life,

27

culinary life, spiritual life, intellectual life, self, family life, love life, arts and culture, work

life, social life, health and safety and financial life. Pyke et al. (2016) suggest that people

do not only seek for good health, secure jobs, strong relationships with others, and time for

leisure activities, but also they desire to have rest and relaxation. Travel and tourism

experiences are one efficient way to achieve relaxation which may contribute well-being

of leisure travelers. During the trip people generally feel better than they do in everyday

life (Nawijn & Veenhoven, 2013).

There are also more indirect benefits of vacationing such as skills learned while on

vacation, having learned a language, understanding a culture, or having made new friends

(Nawijn & Veenhoven, 2013). Even, travel anticipations can make people happier. Gilbert

& Abdullah (2002) examined whether anticipation of a holiday affects or changes the well-

being of the tourist. The result of the study indicated that people who are waiting to go on

a holiday are much happier with their life as a whole and experience less unpleasant

feelings compare to the non-holiday-taking group. Similarly, enjoying the holiday

experience through memories may induce an “afterglow” effect, which increases the post-

trip levels of hedonic affect (Nawijn & Veenhoven, 2013). Nawijn, Marchand, Veenhoven,

& Vingerhoets (2010) clearly explains pre-trip and post trip happiness by utilizing the three

subjective well-being theories: set-point theory, need theory, and comparison theory. In the

study vacationers reported a higher degree of pre-trip happiness, compared to non-

vacationers. This difference was explained by need theory. Need theory assumes that

people have an innate need for wandering and this need can be met by taking a holiday trip.

Nawijn et al. (2010) found no differences between vacationers‘ and non-vacationers‘ post-

28

trip happiness. They noted that set-point theory explains why the effects of holiday on

subjective well-being is short-lived or even absent. Set-point theory argues that happiness

is stable, and it is not possible to change our happiness level much. Finally, comparison

theory explains the both pre and post trip situations, people who anticipate a holiday feel

to be better off than those who intend to stay at home and when the vacationers turn back

to home, they are no longer different from non-vacationers, which explains the similar post

trip happiness level with non-vacationers.

Subjective well-being theory has been used by tourism researchers to

conceptualize and measure well-being of tourists. Some studies focused on the effect of

motivations and satisfactions on SWB. For instance, Cini et al. (2013) investigated the

relationship between visitors’ reasons for visiting a national park, associated self-

regulatory styles and their self-appraisals of SWB. The study found that overnight visitors

who are more intrinsically motivated have higher life satisfaction levels, higher positive

feelings and lower negative feelings. Accordingly, Sirgy (2010) points out that one’s

tourism experience is likely to contribute more to life satisfaction and subjective well-being

when the person is highly involved in that tourism experience, because high involvement

has relation to personal and spiritual development which lead to satisfaction also in other

life domains. Kim et al. (2015) also explains hiking-tourist behavior by investigating tourist

motivation, personal values, subjective well-being, and revisit intention. The study findings

indicate that tourists’ motivation and subjective well-being affects their revisit intention,

moreover hiking-tourists’ motivation and personal values significantly predict their

subjective well-being. Satisfaction with various aspects of trip experiences can also

29

contribute to SWB. Neal, Sirgy and Uysal (2004) found that there is an association between

satisfaction with various aspects of tourism services and general life satisfaction.

2.2.4. Relation Between Festival and Subjective Well-Being (SWB)

Festivals provide remarkable benefits, such as enhancing social interactions and

relationships (Yolal et al., 2016), building social cohesion within a community (Yolal et

al., 2009), and contributing to a sense of belonging and social integration, which can

continue after the event (Packer & Ballantyne, 2011). All those benefits can consequently

increase SBW of the community. Accordingly, Zhang and Zhang (2015) examined the

effects of social participation on subjective well-being among Chinese retirees. The result

of the study indicated that more frequent participation and more active roles in social

activities lead to higher subjective well-being. Similarly, Berry and Welsh (2010) found

that higher levels of community participation were related to higher levels of social

cohesion and to the three forms of health (general health, mental health and physical

functioning). “Although not specifically focused on wellbeing, social anthropological

theory has long argued that mass gatherings (e.g., carnivals and religious festivals) can be

joyous occasions and involve a sense of intimacy even between people who do not know

each other. Moreover, such theory has spoken of the ways in which mass gatherings

revivify social bonds and re-establish group identities” (Tewari et al., 2012, pg. 2). Tewari,

et al. (2012) found that those participating in a Hindu collective event reported a

longitudinal increase in well-being relative to those who did not participate.


tourism, travel and SWB, until recently, there are only few studies concerning festivals’

30

positive impacts on SWB (Table 2.2.). Kruger, Rootenberg and Ellis (2013) found that the

wine festival affects various life domains such as travel life, culinary life, intellectual life,

leisure and recreation life, and social life which overall had a direct influence on quality of

life of the festival participants. Packer and Ballantyne (2011) explored that music festival

attendance have positive impacts on participants’ psychological and social well-being.

Yolal et al. (2016) investigated the association between socio-cultural impacts of a festival

and subjective well-being of local residents. The study findings showed that while

community benefits and cultural/educational benefits have positive impacts on subjective

well-being, quality of life concerns have negative impacts.

Recently, Jepson and Stadler (2017) tried to understand the relationships between

event attendance and Quality of life (QOL) and they provided a research agenda for

exploring, testing, and analyzing the impact of festival and event attendance upon families

QOL. The study suggested a combination of two stages of data collection: focus groups

and semi structured interviews to develop a QOL measurement scale for festivals and

events. They noted that “QOL research has been well explored in medicine, psychology,

and the social sciences, although it has received very little attention within festival and

event studies” (Jepson & Stadler, 2017, pg.47) and they added “the review of existing

literature revealed significant gaps and a lack of understanding in regards the impact of

festivals and events on QOL” (Jepson & Stadler, 2017, pg.53). To contribute the limited

understanding of festival participation impact on SWB of festival participants, this study

aimed to examine how festivals enhance the SWB.

31

Table 2.2 Studies of Festivals' Effect on Quality of Life/Well-Being/Subjective Well-Being

2.3. Social Well-Being

The concept of social well-being was proposed by Keyes (1998), he defines social

well-being as “the appraisal of one’s circumstance and functioning in society” (pg.122).

He argues that social version of well-being is one way to conceptualize and measure well-

being. Accordingly, the World Health Organization defines health as “a state of complete

physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity”

(WHO, 1946). “Most studies on well-being focus on quality of life and personal

STUDY VARIABLES EFFECT OF FESTIVAL METHOD

Packer and

Ballantyne

(2011)

The music experience, the festival

experience, the social experience,

the separation experience,

functions of music, social well-

being, psychological well-being,

subjective well-being

Music festivals has a positive

impact on young adults’

psychological and social well-

being.

Mixed

method

Kruger,

Rootenberg and

Ellis (2013)

Tourism experience, leisure and

recreational life, intellectual life,

quality of life, life domains

overall, culinary life, social

life, travel life, disappointment

and irritation

Wine festivals can have a

positive impact on different

life domains and the QoL of

attending tourists.

Quantitative

Ballantyne,

Ballantyne and

Packer (2014)

The music experience, the festival

experience, the social experience,

the separation experience,

functions of music, Social well-

being, psychological well-being,


The study supports the

generalizability of the results

of Packer and Ballantyne’s

(2011) study.

Mixed

method

Yolal, Gursoy

and Uysal (2016)

Socio-cultural impacts of festival,


Community benefits and

cultural/educational

benefits are positive predictors

of subjective well-being of

residents.

Quantitative

Jepson and

Stadler (2017)

Literature review on festivals and

quality of life

“The review of existing

literature revealed significant

gaps and a lack of

understanding in regards the

impact of festivals and events

on QOL” (pg.53).

Suggests

mixed

methods

32

functioning such as emotional or psychological well-being, relatively little attention has

been given to social functioning in public and social life” (Kong et al., 2015, pg.269).

Keyes (1998) introduced five dimensions to characterize social well-being: 1)

social integration, 2) social acceptance, 3) social contribution, 4) social actualization, 5)

social coherence. Social integration is the individuals’ evaluation of the quality of their

relationship with society and community. Integration is the extent of the feeling of being

part of a society or community. Social acceptance is about trusting others, having favorable

opinions of human nature and feeling comfortable with others. Keyes argue that social

acceptance of others can be the social equivalent of the self-acceptance which is strongly

correlated with good mental health. Social contribution is the appraisal of one’s social

value, feeling of being a vital member of the society, with something of value to give to

the world. Social actualization is the evaluation of the potentials of society. “Socially

healthier people can envision that they, and people like them are potential beneficiaries of

social growth” (Keyes, 1998, pg.123). Finally, social coherence is the perception of the

quality, organization, operation of the social world and having an interest to know and

understand what is happening in the world. Social coherence is parallel to personal

coherence, psychologically healthier individuals see life more meaningful and coherent

(Ryff, 1989).

Previous studies have found variety of factors correlated with social well-being.

For instance, several studies assessed the relationship between five personality traits

(neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness) and social

well-being (Hill et al., 2012; Joshanloo, Rastegar, & Bakhshi, 2012). Kong et al., (2015)

33

found that the personality trait of extraversion might play an important role in the

acquisition and process of social well-being. Some studies have been focused on the

connections of place and the social well-being. Rollero and Piccoli (2010) showed that

place attachment globally affects social well-being. Similarly, sense of community was

found as a predictor of social well-being (Albanesi, Cicognani, & Zani, 2007). Cicognani

et al. (2008) also assessed the relationship between social participation and sense of

community in a sample of students from USA, Italy and Iran, and the impact of such

variables on social wellbeing. The findings of the study suggest that effects of social

participation on social well-being are similar across different national context. Social

support can also contribute to social well-being. Shapiro and Keyes (2008) examined social

support via marriage, looked at marital status differences in individual level social well-

being, their findings suggest that marriage has some advantages (e.g. feeling of belonging)

to promote an individual's sense of social well-being.

In festival context, Packer & Ballantyne (2011) found that music festivals have

positive impact on young adults’ psychological and social well-being. Four facets of the

music festival experience (the music experience, the social experience, the festival

experience and the separation experience) were identified that were related with

psychological, social and subjective well-being. The study utilized an exploratory mixed

method design which is consisted of focus group interviews (stage 1) and questionnaire

survey (stage 2). In qualitative part, respondents reported more positive feelings about

themselves, others and life in general by attending a music festival. Moreover, some

participants mentioned that the music festival experience was not only meaningful in itself

34

but gave meaning to the rest of their lives. Another important finding of the study is that

the only demographic variable that was associated with well-being outcomes was the

frequency of attendance at music festivals. Those who attended music festivals more

frequently reported a greater level of well-being outcomes than those who attended less

frequently. Ballantyne et al., (2014) extends and supports the generalizability of the Packer

and Ballantyne’s (2011) study by applying and testing their conceptual model in another

festival context that attracts a different and more diverse group of attendees. To measure

social well-being, Ballantyne et al. (2014), and Packer and Ballantyne (2011) used Keyes’s

(1998) dimensions of social well-being (five items) : social coherence (“I am more able to

make sense of what is happening”), social integration (“I feel I have more things in

common with others”), social acceptance (“I feel more positive about other people”), social

contribution (“I feel I now have more to contribute to the world”), and social actualization

(“I feel more hopeful about the way things are in the world”).

2.4. Perceived Social Impacts of Festivals

Even though big part of the literature focuses on the economic impacts of the

festivals, there is a growing research on the social benefits of festivals (e.g. Bagiran &

Kurgun, 2013; Gursoy et al., 2004; Lee et al., 2012; Meretse, Mykletun, & Einarsen, 2015;

Packer & Ballantyne, 2011; Rollins, 2007; Winkle & Woosnam, 2013; Yolal et al., 2009).

Fulfilling the social and cultural roles of a festival is very important for the sustainability

of that festival (Andersson & Getz, 2008). Benefits may be related to decision-making in

terms of consumer choices, and they can influence future revisit intentions (Meretse et al.,

2015). Thus, it should be important for event organizers to determine what benefits visitors

35

seek from festivals, in this way they can plan their festivals more efficiently and produce

right marketing strategies. Also, communities perceptions of festivals’ impacts can

determine the acceptance or rejection of the festivals (Bagiran & Kurgun, 2013). Gursoy

et al. (2004) argue that if a proposed festival will possibly create more benefits than costs,

the community should think about having the festival; if costs will likely to be higher than

benefits, this means that festival is not well-planned, and organizers should reconsider their

proposal. Therefore, local governments, policymakers, and organizers should try to

understand the reasons for support and oppositions of festivals (Yolal et al., 2009).

It is also valuable to understand the negative impacts of festivals, as a way to see if

the benefits outweigh the costs on the community. Evidences show that, as similar to other

types of tourism, festivals and special events have negative impacts such as environmental

impacts (e.g. litter), inflation in prices of goods and services, traffic congestion and parking

problems due to crowd in streets (Bagiran & Kurgun, 2013; Gursoy et al., 2004). Some

communities even face with vandalism, hooliganism, crime and other deviant social

behaviors during festivals (Getz & Reinhold, 1991). Additionally, conflicts can be occurred

between residents, because they have different perceptions about the festival (Butler,

1993). It is well-reported in the literature that there is a negative association between the

perception of negative social impacts and the support for tourism development (Gursoy,

Jurowski, & Uysal, 2002; Gursoy et al., 2004; Tosun, 2002). The community or festival

organization should aim to maximize benefits for the community and to minimize and

control any potential negative impacts (Getz & Reinhold, 1991).

36

Several studies developed scales to measure the social impacts of festivals.

Fredline, Jago and Deery (2003) developed a scale to assess the socio-economic impacts

of a variety of medium to large-scale events. They identified six factors: social and

economic development benefits, concerns about justice and inconvenience, impact on

public facilities, impacts on behavior and environment, long-term impacts on the

community, and impacts on prices of some goods and services. Gursoy et al. (2004) also

assessed socio-economic impacts of festivals, the study developed an instrument to

examine perceptions of event organizers about the impact of special events and festivals

on the communities. The study identified that organizers’ perceptions of the socio-

economic impacts have four dimensions (community cohesiveness; economic benefits;

social incentives; and social costs). Another scale, the Social Impact Perception (SIP) scale,

was developed by Small and Edwards (2003) to measure residents’ perceptions of the

social impacts of small community festivals. Small (2007) refined the SIP scale by using

factor analysis to determine factors from a large amount of variables. The study identified

inconvenience, community identity and cohesion, personal frustration, entertainment and

socialization opportunities, community growth and development, and behavioral

consequences as the six underlying dimensions of the social impacts of community

festivals.

Festival Social Impact Attitude Scale (FSIAS), developed by Delamere, Wankel,

and Hinch (2001), has been commonly used to measure residents’ perceptions of the social

impacts of community-based festivals. Delamere et al. (2001) first tested the scale on

convenience samples of students from Malaspina University-College and the University of

37

Alberta. The initial pretest of the FSIAS determined two main factors; social benefits and

social costs, and four sub-factors; social benefits comprise “community benefits and

cultural/education benefits” and social costs comprise “quality of life concerns and

community resource concerns”. Later, the FSIAS scale was tested and verified in

Edmonton Folk Music Festival in 2001 with the selected residents of the local community.

Similar to the initial pretest, “social benefits and social costs” were identified as the main

factors, and “community benefits and individual benefits” were revealed as the sub-factors

of social benefits, and no sub-factors were found for social costs. Delamere (2001)

suggested to test the scale in different communities and different types of festivals. In this

study, the scale proposed by Delamere et al. (2001) was used in order to assess festival

attendees’ perceptions of the social impacts of the 6th International Orange Blossom

Festival.

2.4.1. Relation between Perceived Impacts of Festivals and Subjective Well-Being

(SWB)

There is very limited research on the relation between impacts of festivals and

subjective well-being. Recently, Yolal et al. (2016) examined the association between

perceived benefits (community benefits and cultural/educational) of a festival and

subjective well-being. The study found that community benefits and cultural/educational

benefits are positively correlated to subjective well-being of residents. To contribute the

limited understanding of this relation the study hypothesized that perceived positive

impacts of festivals are associated with higher levels of subjective well-being, while

negative impacts are associated with lower levels of subjective wellbeing.

38

2.5. Festival and Event Motivation

“A motive is an internal factor that arouses, directs, and integrates a person’s

behavior” (Iso-Ahola 1980, pg.230). Measuring festival motivations help researchers to

identify and segment types of attendees, thus they can develop and promote festivals in

order to satisfy attendees’ motivations. Accordingly, many researchers have been

interested in why people attend events and festivals, and they have examined motivations

of visitors (Backman, Backman, Uysal, & Sunshine, 1995; Correia, Kozak, & Ferradeira,

2013; Crompton, 1979; Delbosc, 2008; Li & Petrick, 2005; Yolal et al., 2009; Yoo, Lee,

& Lee, 2013).

According to the literature review of the festival and event motivations studies by

Li and Petrick (2005), a majority of the festival and event motivations studies has been

grounded on the escape-seeking dichotomy (Iso-Ahola, 1980, 1982; Mannell & Iso-Ahola,

1987) and a notion of the push–pull factors (Crompton, 1979; Dann, 1977, 1981). Both

theories were influenced by Maslow (1943) hierarchy of needs, as (Crompton et al., 1997)

mentioned that visiting a festival is a directed action which is initiated with a desire to meet

a need. Crompton (1979) identified seven push motives (escape from a perceived mundane

environment, exploration and evaluation of self, relaxation, prestige, regression,

enhancement of kinship relationships, and facilitation of social interaction) and two pull

factors (novelty and education). The pull factors are external motives which are aroused by

the product or destination rather than emerging exclusively from within the traveler

himself, while push factors are internal, socio-psychological motives (Crompton, 1979).

Thus, a person can be either “pushed” to travel by personal intrinsic factors such as the

39

desire for exploration of himself or need for escape; or he can be “pulled” to a destination

by extrinsic attributes such as climatic characteristics, scenic attractions, cultural and

historical features of the destination (Crompton, 1979). “Iso-Ahola’s escape-seeking

dichotomy and the concept of push-pull factors are interrelated” (Crompton et al., 1997).

Iso-Ahola’s model proposes that “escapism” and “seeking” are the two major factors that

influence behavior. Escaping is the desire to move away from daily routine, while seeking

is the desire to gain psychological (intrinsic) rewards via travelling and experiencing new

things.

Crompton et al. (1997) argued that there are three reasons for trying to have better

understanding of the motives of festival visitors. First, knowing about visitor motivations

is very important to plan right offerings for them; second, motivation has close relationship

with satisfaction; third, it helps us to understand visitors’ decision processes which is likely

to enhance effectiveness of marketing activities. Therefore, understanding the motivations

of visitors would help festival managers to gain both short-term momentum and long-term

sustainability (Kitterlin& Yoo, 2014).

Motivation may differ across some factors such as age, income, marital status, local

residency and repeat visitation. Backman et al. (1995) found variation in motivations across

demographic groups. For instance, the study suggests that people in low income group are

not motivated to participate in high-risk activities while they are more likely to attend

festival to socialize. Mohr et al. (1993) found significant differences in festival motivations

and satisfaction between first-time and repeat visitors. Similarly, Lee, Lee and Yoon (2009)

reported that the motivational power of novelty reduces for repeat visitors while relaxation

40

becomes an important motivator to induce first-timers to repeat their visit. Those findings

suggest that event or festival attendees needs segmentation since they are heterogeneous

groups (Li & Petrick, 2005).

Crompton et al. (1997) assessed the extent to which the perceived relevance of

motives changed across different types of events (parades/carnivals, pageants/balls, food-

oriented events, musical events, and museums/exhibits/shows). The study found that

different type of events may satisfy the similar set of motives in different levels. However,

further research shows that motivation factors can vary by festival types. For example, Park

et al. (2008) assessed motivations of a wine festival attendees. It was concluded that

attendees were motivated by different factors which are associated to the theme of the

festival. Seven dimensions were emerged through factor analysis: the desire to taste new

wine and food, enjoy the event, enhance social status, escape from routine life, meet new

people, spend time with family, and get to know the celebrity chefs and wine experts. As

another example for a different type of festival, Delbosc (2008) explored some of the

reasons for why people visit cultural festivals and she found that social identity is an

important motivator for visiting the festival, especially for community members.

2.5.1. Relation between Motivation and Subjective Well-Being (SWB)

There is a limited number of studies which examine the direct influence of

motivation on subjective well-being in the field of tourism. No study has yet examined the

effects of festival motivations on subjective well-being. Kim et al. (2015) argued that even

though tourism research has been mostly using satisfaction and behavioral intentions as

41

outcome constructs, subjective well-being is also a considerable outcome of tourist

motivation.

Cini et al. (2013) investigated the relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic

motivations for visiting a national park and SWB of overnight visitors. The study examined

both the cognitive (life satisfaction) and affective (positive and negative feelings)

components of SWB and their relation to motivations with different degrees of self-

determination. The results of the study indicated that the visitors who are more intrinsically

motivated have higher life satisfaction levels, higher positive feelings and lower negative

feelings. As another example, Kim et al. (2015) tried to understand revisit intention of

hiking-tourist by examining their motivation, personal values and subjective well-being,

and the study found that hiking-tourists’ motivation is an effective predictor of subjective

well-being. Based on the literature, the present research aimed to analyze the relationship

between motivations for visiting the festival and SWB of festival attendees. Hence, festival

motivation is hypothesized to be associated with SWB.

2.6. Festival Satisfaction

Kotler (2000) suggest that customer satisfaction is a person’s feelings of pleasure

or disappointment which is caused by a gap between product’s perceived performance and

person’s expectations. Measuring and monitoring satisfaction is a very important process

since it helps businesses to achieve success (Wu et al., 2014). Accordingly, the construct

of satisfaction has been extensively studied in the festival and events field (e.g. Ozdemir

& Culha, 2009; Papadimitriou, 2013; Son & Lee, 2011; Thrane, 2002; Y. Yoon,Lee, &

Lee, 2010).

42

Satisfaction research yields essential information also in the field of tourism. The

literature has shown that satisfaction has been closely related to many important outcomes

in tourism such as destination image (De Nisco, Mainolfi, Marino, & Napolitano, 2015),

destination loyalty (Chi & Qu, 2008), revisit intention (Jang & Feng, 2007) and life

satisfaction (Chen et al., 2016). Satisfaction contribute to sustainability of tourism by

retaining visitor numbers and also attracting more tourists to destination through positive

word-of-mouth (Lee, Lee, & Arcodia, 2013). Yoon and Uysal (2005) also indicated that

satisfied tourists are more likely to have a re-visit intention and to share their experiences

with others compared to less satisfied tourists.

Satisfaction has been used as a basic parameter to evaluate the performance of

tourism products and services (Yoon & Uysal, 2005). Wu et al. (2014) defines visitor

satisfaction measurement as “an evaluation of the quality of destination performance,

where visitors are satisfied not only with what they experience; namely, how they were

treated and served at a destination, but also how they felt during the service encounter” (pg.

1280). Festival quality has been seen as an antecedent of satisfaction and behavioral

intentions (Wu et al., 2014). Tian-Cole, Crompton, and Wilson (2002) indicated that when

leisure service’s attributes perceived as high quality, higher levels of overall satisfaction

with the service is more likely to occur. Lee, Petrick and Crompton (2007) also stated that

higher visitor satisfaction may be obtained by improving the quality of facilities and

services.

To assess tourist satisfaction various theories have been utilized (Yoon & Uysal,

2005). Expectation-disconfirmation model which was proposed by Rust and Oliver (1993)

43

is one of the most widely used tool to measure satisfaction in tourism and hospitality sector

(e.g. Serenko & Stach, 2009; Wong & Dioko, 2013; Zehrer, Crotts & Magnini, 2011). The

model explains that consumers compare the actual performance of a product with their

expectations. Positive disconfirmation occurs when the actual performance is better than

individual’s expectations which is an indicator of a highly satisfied consumer. Negative

disconfirmation happens when actual performance falls under the expectations which cause

unsatisfied consumers.

2.6.1. Relation between Satisfaction and Subjective Well-Being (SWB)

Leisure satisfaction was defined by Ateca-Amestoy, Serrano-del-Rosal, & Vera-

Toscano (2008, pg.65) as “positive perceptions or feelings that an individual forms, elicits,

or gains as a result of engaging in leisure activities and choices. It is the degree to which

one is presently content or pleased with her general leisure experiences and situations. This

positive feeling of pleasure results from the satisfaction of felt or unfelt needs of the

individual”. Leisure satisfaction may contribute happiness (Ateca-Amestoy et al., 2008;

Nawijn & Veenhoven, 2013).

Although satisfaction has extensively been studied in tourism, very limited study is

focusing on the relation between satisfaction and well-being. Some research has argued

that tourism satisfaction can contribute to tourists' psychological well-being (Neal, Sirgy,

& Uysal, 1999; Sirgy, 2010; Chen, Huang & Petrick, 2016). Neal et al. (1999) posited that

positive holiday experiences effects how people evaluate life domains (e.g. work, leisure,

family) and enhance their overall life satisfaction. Chen et al. (2016) supported the

mediating effect of tourism satisfaction between tourism recovery experience and overall

44

life satisfaction. Based on the leisure and tourism literature, this research hypothesized that

festival satisfaction has a positive effect on subjective well-being of festival attendees

which has been absent in the festival and event literature.

2.7. Revisit Intention and Word of Mouth (WOM)

Repurchase intentions and recommendations to other people is related to the topic

of loyalty which is one the important measure of success in marketing literature (Yoon &

Uysal, 2005). Businesses care a lot about loyalty “because acquiring a new customer costs

a lot more than retaining an existing one and no direct operating costs are incurred during

the Word of Mouth (WOM) marketing” (Yolal, Chi, & Pesämaa, 2017, pg.1834).

Similarly, revisit intention and word of mouth has been an important research topic in

destination marketing, since many tourist destinations highly relied on the visitation of

repeat visitors (Jang & Feng, 2007; Lee, Lee, & Arcodia, 2013; Lee, Lee, & Yoon, 2009;

Li, Cheng, Kim, & Petrick, 2008; Stylos et al., 2017; Yolal et al., 2017). Having repeat

visitors can be very advantageous because less persuasion efforts and lower promotional

expenditure needed for repeaters than for new visitors (Li et al., 2008).

Chiang, Xu, Kim, Tang, & Manthiou (2017) defines Word of Mouth (WOM) as

“informal communication about the attributes of a product or service that occurs among

consumers” (pg.782), and revisit intention means the willingness of tourists to return a

destination (Stylos et al., 2017). According to Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), most

human behaviors can be predicted from a person’s intention because such behaviors are

volitional and under the control of intention (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). Even though there

is no perfect relationship between intention and actual behavior, intention is still considered

45

to be the best predictor of behavior (Ajzen et al., 1985, 1991; Lam & Hsu, 2004). Tourist’s

visit intentions can be seen as an individual’s anticipated future travel behavior.

Satisfaction is one of the most used construct to determine revisit intention (Jang &

Feng, 2007; Ahmad Puad & Badarneh, 2011; Assaker, Vinzi, & O’Connor, 2011; Hultman,

Skarmeas, Oghazi, & Beheshti, 2015; Kim, Kim, Goh, & Antun, 2011). Yoon and Uysal

(2005) mentioned that positive experiences of tourists with services and products that

offered by tourism destinations can facilitate repeat visits and positive WOM. Perceived

service quality and destination’s distinctive nature can also contribute to the revisit

intention (Um, Chon, & Ro, 2006). From a destination marketing perspective Um et al.

(2006) noted that the antecedents of revisit intention are still obscure because of lack of

theoretical and empirical evidence. Jamaludin, Sam, Sandal, & Adam (2016) argue that

affect in the context of tourism can be a determinant factor for destination loyalty intention

since present moods could affect individuals’ decisions. Even though subjective well-being

can be an important evaluative element for revisit intention until now few research has

focused on the relationship between subjective well-being and revisit intention (Jamaludin

et al., 2016). The current study aimed to fill this gap.

46

CHAPTER 3

METHODS

The purpose of this chapter is to present the methods used in this research which

investigates the relationships between the following main constructs: festival motivations,

festival satisfaction, perceived socio-cultural impacts of festival, social well-being,

subjective wellbeing (positive affect, negative affect and life satisfaction), revisit intention

and word of mouth. This study used a face to face survey to obtain quantitative data, which

was analyzed using SPSS 25 and EQS 6.3 with advanced Confirmatory Factor Analyses

(CFA). The chapter begins by describing the study site. The second section provides

information about the study population and sampling design. In the next section, the survey

process used to develop the survey instrument and the construction of the survey questions

are described. The fourth section describes the data collection process used in this study.

Finally, it concludes with a description of the statistical procedures used to analyze the data

and to test the hypothesis.

3.1 Study Site

3.1.1 The Adana City

The site for this study was the International Orange Blossom Carnival in Adana,

Turkey. Adana city is in southern Turkey (Figure 3.1); the population of the city in 2018

was recorded as 2.220.125, making it the fifth most populous city in Turkey (Adana, n.d.).

The city consists of the urban areas of the four metropolitan districts; Seyhan, Yüreğir,

Çukurova, Sarıçam and eleven other rural districts. The population distribution among the

districts was shown in table 3.1.

47

Table 3. 1 Population Distribution of Adana City Among Districts in 2018 (Adana

population, n.d.).

Districts

District

Population Men Women

District

population/City

population

Seyhan 793,480 393.872 399.608 35.74%

Yuregir 415,198 208,709 206,489 18.70%

Cukurova 365,735 176,561 189,174 16.47%

Saricam 173,154 88,404 84,750 7.80%

Other 11 rural districts 472,558 239,265 233,293 21.29%

Adana is located on the south of the Taurus Mountains and the northeastern edge

of Mediterranean, by the Seyhan River in Cukurova (Cilicia) alluvial plain which is the

most fertile and the most developed agricultural land of the Mediterranean region of the

country (Doygun, 2005). Adana is also one of the most important citrus production areas

in Turkey (Yildirim et al., 2010). The Orange blossom scent is the inspiration for the

International Orange Blossom Carnival. The website of the Carnival promotes the events

with these words “Adana is one of the most beautiful cities in April, the beautiful smell of

orange blossoms flood its streets, orange blossoms have an enchanting smell, it cleanses

your soul, you feel younger, you become purified, it gives you the energy to start a great

many things from scratch” (Nisanda Adanada, n.d.).

Figure 3. 1 Map of Turkey (Google, n.d.)

https://www.nufusu.com/ilce/seyhan_adana-nufusu

https://www.nufusu.com/ilce/yuregir_adana-nufusu

https://www.nufusu.com/ilce/cukurova_adana-nufusu

48

“Adana has a great tourism potential with its geographical position and natural,

historical and cultural wealth” (Tastan, Enes, Sahin, 2018). It is also an important

destination for Gastronomy Tourism. Some food festivals are organized in the city (e.g.

“Adana Kebap Festival”) for branding Adana as a gastronomy city. Adana hosts many

other festivals including film and theatre festivals, but Orange Blossom Carnival has the

highest attendance among the festivals in Adana. The Carnival had a great contribution to

increase the number of tourist arrivals in the last five years. The total tourist numbers

accommodated in Adana have increased from 648,600 in 2013 to 1,187,708 in 2018

(Adana Tourism, 2018).

Table 3. 2 Number of Tourists Accommodated in Adana for the Years 2013-2018 (Adana

Tourism, 2018).

Tourists 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Domestic 547,922 627,759 705,645 804,788 970,002 1,036,642

International 100,678 125,706 127,723 106,218 124,303 151,066

Total 648,600 753,465 833,368 911,006 1,094,305 1,187,708

3.1.2 The Orange Blossom Carnival

The Orange Blossom Carnival is the first and only Carnival event in Turkey.

Orange Blossom Carnival is also different from other festivals held in Adana, because it

offers a variety of activities for diverse interests and age groups. Throughout the event,

more than one hundred activities are organized in different locations of Adana, including

concerts, folk dancing shows, theatre, photo art exhibitions and a street parade (Daily

Sabah, 2018). The carnival parade is the most attractive event of the Orange Blossom

Carnival since the first Carnival in 2013 (Yildirim, Karaca, 2018).

49

The purpose of the festival is to contribute the local economy, increase tourism in

the destination and enhance the image of the city by promoting the food, culture and the

history of the city (Yildirim, Karaca & Cakici, 2016). The festival is organized by a civil

initiative, but it is supported mainly by the Adana Metropolitan Municipality and other

Adana institutions, organizations, local authorities and private companies. No admission

fee charged to attend the Carnival and there is no gate. The festival has occurred annually

since 2013 and it lasts 3-5 days in early April. The dates and the length of the festival are

scheduled annually.

The estimated attendance to carnival in previous years was recorded as following:

50.000 in 2013, 140.000 in 2014 and 350.000 in 2015 (Yildirim, Karaca, 2018). In 2016,

the opening parade was cancelled because of terror attacks in different parts of Turkey,

thus there is no attendance information for this year. Also, no information about visitors’

numbers could be found for 2017. In 2018, approximately 1.5 million people participated

the festival during the 4 days (Haberturk, 2018).

3.2 Research Design

3.2.1 Study Population and Sampling Frame

Zikmund et al. (2010) defined population as “any complete group of entities that

share some common set of characteristics.” (p. 387). For the purposes of this study, the

population of interest consisted of the participants of the 6th International Orange Blossom

Carnival, Adana, Turkey which was held on April 5-8, 2018.

According to Zikmund et al. (2010), “a sampling frame is the working population

from which a sample may be drawn” (p.391). The sampling frame for this study included

50

all attendees of the 6th International Orange Blossom Carnival, including residents and

tourists who are over 18 years old.

3.2.2 Sampling Size Parameters

A study’s sample size is important for several reasons. First of all, to have a

representative sample of the population of interests and to cover the variance across the

festival participants sample size should be large enough. Second, the sample size affects

the possible types of statistics that can be used in the study (Hair et al., 2010). Third, the

sample size should be large enough to obtain the right amount of power. A general rule is

the larger the sample size, the greater the statistical power (Hair et al., 2010).

Since this study is using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), sample size

recommendations were considered to determine the necessary sample size. Gorsuch (1983)

and Kline (1979) argued that N should be at least 100. Cattell (1978) recommended that

the minimum N should be 250. Comrey and Lee (1992) provided a rating scale for range

of sample sizes in factor analysis: 100 = poor, 200 = fair, 300 = good, 500 = very good,

1,000 or more = excellent. Maccallum et al. (1999) suggest that sample size become even

more important when we have low communalities. He stated that “under the worst

conditions of low communalities and a larger number of weakly determined factors, any

possibility of good recovery of population factors probably requires very large samples,

well over 500”. Therefore, to increase the effect sizes, power and fitness of models, it was

aimed to get a sample size bigger than 500. 652 individuals were invited to participate in

the study, off the 652 individuals 550 accepted to be in the study, with a response rate of

84%.

51

3.3 Survey Instruments and the Measurements of the Concepts

3.3.1 Survey Instruments

The questionnaire had a total of 97-items in eight sections: Section 1: festival

participation information, such as questions regarding festival attendance frequency

consisted of 7 items; Section 2: Festival motivations consisted of 18 items; Section 3:

Festival satisfaction consisted of 7 items; Section 4: Perceived socio-cultural impacts of

the festival consisted of 25 items; Section 5: Social well-being consisted of 5 items; Section

6: Subjective well-being with two subscales (Positive and Negative Affect Scale, and

Satisfaction with Life Scale) consisted of 25 items; Section 7: Revisit Intention and Word

of Mouth Intention consisted of 4 items, and finally, Section 8: Demographic information

consisted of 6 questions (Appendix A).

The questionnaire was entirely in Turkish. Forward and backward translation of items

for each scale occurred to provide for greater accuracy in responses (Epstein et al., 2015). The

questionnaire was originally developed in English and then translated into Turkish (Appendix

B). A back-translation (Appendix C) was done to ensure that both English and Turkish versions

were comparable. Two graduate students who are fluent in both English and Turkish checked

the correspondence of meaning between the two versions. The equivalence of the translation

was verified.

3.3.2 Measurement of the Concepts

A number of scales and subscales which have been validated by previous research,

were used in the current study in order to assess the festival attendees ’motivations,

satisfaction, perceived sociocultural impacts, social wellbeing, subjective wellbeing, revisit

52

intention and word of mouth in a festival context. The researcher chose scales based on the

degree to which they adequately measure the appropriate construct while balancing the

need for shortness due to the complex lengthy nature of the suryey. All constructs in the

current study were measured by using a 7-point Likert-type scale where 1 is “strongly

disagree” and 7 is “strongly agree.”

3.3.2.1 Festival Motivations

Motivations to attend the Orange Blossom Carnival was measured using 18 items

adapted from Yolal et al. (2009) (Table 3.3). Their study was done in a festival in Turkey,

therefore the survey instrument was in Turkish. The exploratory factor analysis used in the

study resulted in four dimensions—socialization, escape and excitement, family

togetherness, and event novelty. Their results also indicated that all factors together

explained almost 58% of the variance in motivation. The reliability coefficients for the

dimensions were reported as follows: socialization (0.799), escape and excitement (0.748),

family togetherness (0.843), event novelty (0.678).

53

Table 3. 3 Festival Motivations Items

Socialization

1. To observe the other people attending the festival

2. For a chance to be with people who are enjoying themselves

3. To be with people of similar interest

4. To be with people who enjoy the same things I do

5. Because I enjoy the festival crowds

6. To experience the festival myself

7. So I could be with my friends

Escape and excitement

8. For a change of pace from my everyday life

9. To have a change from my daily routine

10. To experience new and different things

11. Because I was curious

12. To get away from the demands of life

13. Because it is stimulating and exciting

Family togetherness

14. Because I thought the entire family would enjoy it

15. So the family could do something together

Event novelty

16. Because I enjoy special events

17. Because I like the variety of things to see and do

18. Because festivals are unique

3.3.2.2 Festival Satisfaction

Satisfaction with the festival was measured using 7 items adapted from Lee, Kyle

and Scott (2012) (Table 3.4). The study used 11 items satisfaction with the festivals scale

which was originally adapted from Oliver’s (1980, 1997) evaluative set of cumulative

satisfaction measures. Based on the CFA results Lee et al. (2012) deleted four items

because of the presence of the cross-loadings and low reliability. The loadings for the

remaining items ranged between 0.79 and 0.90. The Cronbach alpha reliability for the 7-

item scale was reported as 0.95. Lee et al. (2012) used 7-point Likert-type scale where 1 is

“strongly disagree” and 7 is “strongly agree.” Current study also used 7-point Likert scale

to measure satisfaction.

54

Table 3. 4 Festival Satisfaction Items

1. My choice to visit this festival was a wise one

2. I am sure it was the right decision to visit this festival

3. This was one of the best festivals I have ever visited

4. My experience at this festival was exactly what I needed

5. I am satisfied with my decision to visit this festival

6. This festival made me feel happy

7. I enjoyed myself at this festival

3.3.2.3 Social Impacts of Festival

Perceived socio-cultural impacts of the festival was measured using the 25-item

Festival Social Impact Attitudes Scale (FSIAS) adapted from Winkle and Woosnam (2013)

which was originally formulated by Delamere (2001). Festival Social Impact Attitude

Scale (FSIAS) has been commonly used to measure residents’ perceptions of the social

impacts of community-based festivals.

Delamare (2001) developed the FSIAS scale. The study had three stages:

generating a list of items about the costs and benefits of festivals, testing the items on a

convenience sample of students, and verifying the scale through testing on different

community festivals in Canada. In the final stage, from 47 survey items,25 items survived

from the alpha coefficient analysis Delamere (2001). The scree test used in the study

showed that a two-factor solution accounted for 62.9 % of the variance in the data. Factor

1, "social benefits of community festivals" which includes 16 items, had alpha coefficient

of .948. Factor 2, "social costs of community festivals" containing 9 items and alpha

coefficient reported as .942. The alpha coefficient for the 25-item scale was reported as

.951. To check whether there is another dimension, further factor analysis was conducted

55

for each factor. The results indicated that while "Factor 2 -Social costs of community

festivals" kept loading on the one factor, “Factor 1- Social benefits of community festivals"

loaded on two factors: Sub-factor 1, "Community Benefits" and Sub-factor 2 "Individual

Benefits" each includes 8 items.

Winkle and Woosnam (2013) used also the three-factor scale. Their study reported

that the model for the individual benefits accounted for 30 percent of variance in the

individual benefits factor (R²=0.30), the model for the community benefits accounted for

21 percent of variance in the community benefits factor (R²=0.21), finally the model for

the social costs accounted for 15.7 percent of the variance in the social costs factor of the

FSIAS (R²=0.157). Current study also used FSIAS with the three factors: community

benefits (eight items); individual benefits (eight items); social costs (nine items) (Table

3.5).

56

Table 3. 5 Festival Social Impact Attitudes Scale (FSIAS) items Community benefits

1. Festival enhances image of the community

2. My community gains positive recognition as result of festival

3. Community identity is enhanced through festival

4. Festival is a celebration of my community

5. Festival leaves ongoing positive cultural impact in community

6. Festival helps me show others why my community is unique and special

7. Festival contributes to sense of community well-being

8. Festival helps improve quality of life in community

Individual benefits

9. Festival provides opportunities for community residents to experience new activities

10. Residents participating in festival have opportunity to learn new things

11. I enjoy meeting festival performers/workers

12. I feel a personal sense of pride and recognition by participating in festival

13. Festival provides community with opportunity to discover/develop new cultural

skills/talents

14. I am exposed to variety of cultural experiences through festival

15. Festival acts as a showcase for new ideas

16. Festival contributes to my personal health/well-being

Social costs

17. Festival leads to disruption in normal routines of community residents

18. My community is overcrowded during festival

19. Car/bus/truck/RV traffic is increased to unacceptable levels during festival

20. Community recreational facilities are overused during festival

21. Litter is increased to unacceptable levels during festival

22. Festival is intrusion into lives of community residents

23. Festival overtaxes available community human resources

24. Influx of festival visitors reduces privacy we have within our community

25. Noise levels are increased to an unacceptable level during festival

3.3.2.4 Social Well-being

In this study, social well-being was assessed using a 5-item scale from Packer and

Ballantyne (2011) which is originally adapted from Keyes's (1998) social wellbeing scale

(SWBS). Keyes (1995) argued that the notion that people are social and live in a

community was missing from the conceptions of well-being, therefore he proposed a social

psychological conception of well-being. Keyes (1998) defines social well-being as “the

appraisal of one’s circumstance and functioning in society” (pg.122). Keyes (1998)

57

introduced five dimensions to characterize social well-being: 1) social integration, 2) social

acceptance, 3) social contribution, 4) social actualization, 5) social coherence.

Keyes (2002) defined positive mental health as not just the absence of mental

illness, but as “a syndrome of symptoms of positive feelings and positive functioning in

life.” (p.207). He developed an item pool for social well-being based on the classic

sociological theory and social psychological perspectives. After checking the initial item

pool for clarity, complexity, and consistency of each item with the operational definitions,

fifty items were retained, ten for each dimension, for the final item pool. Using the

interviews, respondents were asked to indicate whether they agreed or disagreed strongly,

moderately, or slightly. The fifty items were factor analyzed, using principle components

extraction and varimax rotation. Twenty four of the fifty items were found to be unsuitable

indicators of social well-being, either because of low loadings or overlapping onto other

factors. The factor structure of the final twenty-six items emerged as five dimensions. The

factors explained almost half (50.1%) of the variation among the items. The internal (alpha)

reliability coefficient of the composite, twenty-six item scale was reported as .86. The

internal (alpha) reliability coefficients for the meaningfulness of society was 0.56 and

social actualization was .63, social integration was .80, social contribution was .76, and

acceptance of others was .75.

Keyes (1998) also confirmed the construct validity and internal consistency, and

the five-factor structure of the Social-Wellbeing scale with two studies using data from a

nationally representative sample of adults (Keyes 1998). The study reported the Cronbach

alpha reliability as 0.84. Shorter versions of the scale was also used in several studies

58

(Ballantyne et al., 2014; de Jager, Coetzee, & Visser, 2008; Keyes, 2006; J Packer &

Ballantyne, 2011). Keyes (2006) used shorter version (5 items) of the scale, he reported

the alpha reliability of the five items of social well-being as .80.

In festival context, Packer & Ballantyne (2011) found that music festivals have

positive impact on young adults’ psychological and social well-being. Ballantyne et al.

(2014) extended and supported the generalizability of Packer and Ballantyne’s (2011)

study by applying and testing their conceptual model in another festival context that attracts

a different and more diverse group of attendees. To measure social well-being, Ballantyne

et al. (2014) and Packer and Ballantyne (2011) used Keyes’s (1998) dimensions of social

well-being with five items (Table 3.6). Current study utilized these five items to measure

social wellbeing of the festival participants.

Table 3. 6 Social Well-being Scale (SWBS) Items

Social coherence

1. I am more able to make sense of what is happening in the world

Social integration

2. I feel I have more things in common with others

Social acceptance

3. I feel more positive about other people

Social contribution

4. I feel I now have more to contribute to the world

Social actualization

5. I feel more hopeful about the way things are in the world

59

3.3.2.5 Subjective well-being

3.3.2.5.1 Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS)

To assess the affective component of subjective wellbeing, current study utilized

the Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS) scale which is developed by Watson,

Clark and Tellegen (1988). PANAS is one of the most frequently used affect scales in

psychology and other social sciences. It has been cited in more than 34,000 scholarly

papers. The high number of citations shows that the scale has had an important impact on

social science research related to mood and affect. It is a 20-item scale (10 items for

Positive Affect (PA) and 10 items for Negative Affects (NA)) describing various moods.

Positive Affect refers the extent to which a person feels variety of mood states such as

excited, active, and enthusiastic, while Negative Affect characterize by mood states such

as anger, upset, and hostile (Watson et al., 1988). The scale offers researchers to assess

positive affects and negative affects experience with different temporal instructions.

Subjects can be asked to rate how they felt (a) right now (b) today (c) during the past few

days (d) during the past week (e) during the past few weeks (f) during the past year and (g)

in general.

Watson et al. (1988) developed the PANAS scale by using the results of the study

Zevon and Tellegen (1982). In Zevon and Tellegen’s (1982) study, twenty-three subjects

completed a 60-item mood adjective checklist for 90 consecutive days. The subjects were

asked to indicate how they felt by endorsing the adjectives on a 5-point scale. The 5 points

were labeled "very slightly or not at all," "a little," "moderately," "quite a bit," and "very

much," respectively. By using the principal components analysis, Zevon and Tellegen

60

(1982) found 60 items organized into 20 mood categories, each containing three adjectival

descriptors. For example, “strong” included strong, healthy, and active, “joyful” included

joyful, happy, and delighted, and “friendly” included friendly, socaible, and warmhearted.

Watson et al. (1988) selected possible descriptors for the PANAS from Zevon and

Tellegen’s (1982) 60 items. The items were selected by using the criteria for loadings, cross

loadings and reliability analyses. The resulting twenty descriptors for the PANAS scale

were shown in table 3.7.

Watson et al. (1988) stated that “The scales are shown to be highly internally

consistent, largely uncorrelated, and stable at appropriate levels over a 2-month time

period” (pg. 1063). The study reported acceptably high alpha reliabilities ranging from .86

to .90 for PA and from .84 to .87 for NA. Also, the study found that correlations between

PA and NA were generally low (r = -.12 to -.23) indicating that these scales were relatively

independent constructs. The studies that used the Turkish version of the scale, has also

reported high reliabilities. For instance, Dogan and Totan (2013) reported the reliability

coefficients for the PA as .86 and for the NA .80. Gençöz (2000) has also found relatively

high reliabilities, .83 for PA and .86 for NA.

61

Table 3. 7 Positive Affect and Negative Affect (PANAS) Scale 1. Interested

2. Distressed

3. Excited

4. Upset

5. Strong

6. Guilty

7. Scared

8. Hostile

9. Enthusiastic

10. Proud

11. Irritable

12. Alert

13. Ashamed

14. Inspired

15. Nervous

16. Determined

17. Attentive

18. Jittery

19. Active

20. Afraid

3.3.2.5.2 Life Satisfaction

To assess the cognitive component of SBW, Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS)

was used. The SWLS includes statements about the evaluation of satisfaction with life in

general which does not cover specific domains such as relationships, work, etc. An

example item is “In most ways my life is close to my ideal”. The SWLS is generated by

Diener et al. (1998) to measure one component of subjective well-being, the other two

components were positive affect and negative affect. This original scale includes 48 items.

The items were developed by using the theoretical principle that life satisfaction represents

a judgment by the respondent of his or her life in comparison to standards. Among those

48 items, 10 items loaded onto the life satisfaction factor which were above 0.60. These 10

items were further reduced to 5 items to reduce the wording redundancies while minimizing

62

the effect on alpha reliability. The current version of the SWLS is comprised of these 5

items (Table 3.8). SWLS measures life satisfaction by asking participants to rate their level

of agreement with the five statements on a seven-point response scale from strongly

disagree to strongly agree (Diener et al., 1985). The scale usually takes only about one

minute of a respondent's time (Diener et al., 1985). It is assumed that life satisfaction is

stable or shows little variation within short periods (e.g. 2 months) of time (Kapteyn, Lee,

Tassot, Vonkova, & Zamarro, 2015). However, over longer time periods (e.g. 4 years)

significant changes in the individual’s life satisfaction can be observed (Magnus & Diener,

1991).

Results for SWLS are interpreted by summing the scores, higher scores indicating

higher levels of satisfaction with life. For 5-point Likert scale, scores between 5 and 9

indicates being extremely dissatisfied with life, 10 to 14 indicates being dissatisfied, 15 to

19 indicate being slightly dissatisfied. 20 demonstrates the neutral status. Scores between

21 and 25 show being slightly satisfied, 26-30 show being satisfied, and 30-35 being highly

satisfied.

The SWLS has shown strong internal reliability, Diener et al. (1985) reported a

coefficient alpha of .87 for the scale. The Turkish adaptation of the scale has also showed

high reliabilities. For instance, Dogan and Totan (2013) reported the test-retest reliability

of the SWLS as .90. Similarly, Yetim (1993) found the test-retest reliability of the scale as

.85 and its internal consistency as .76.

Pavot & Diener (1993) reported that the scale is significantly positively correlated

with positive affect and negatively correlated with negative affect. Accordingly, Smead

63

(1991) found the correlation coefficient between SWLS and positive affect scale as .44,

and -.48 for between the SWLS and negative affect scale. Furthermore, Pavot and Diener

(1993) argued that SWLS demonstrates good validity when it was compared with Positive

and Negative Affect Scale.

Table 3. 8 Subjective Well-being Life Satisfaction (SWLS) Items

1. In most ways my life is close to my ideal.

2. The conditions of my life are excellent.

3. I am satisfied with my life.

4. So far I have gotten the important things I want in life.

5. If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing.

3.3.2.6 Revisit Intention and Word of Mouth

In order to assess revisit intention and word of mouth, 4 items scale, two for each

was used. The scale was adapted from Kim, Lee and Lee (2017). Kim et al. (2017)

developed and tested the scale by utilizing the previous studies (Lee, Kim, Kim, & Choi,

2014; Lee, Kim, Lee, & Kim, 2014; Lee, Lee, Choi et al., 2014; Zeithaml, Berry, &

Parasuraman, 1996). For content validity, the authors asked two scholars and one festival

manager to evaluate the measurement items. They measured the items by using a 5-point

Likert-type scale anchored by “strongly disagree” and “strongly agree. To analyze the data

the study used a component-based PLS (Partial Least Squares)- SEM (Structural Equation

Modeling) method with SMARTPLS 2.0. In the study, the cronbach’s alpha, the construct

reliability (CR) values exceeded 0.8 and the average variance extracted (AVE) values were

above 0.5 for both intention and word of mouth scale. The results also supported

convergent and discriminant validities (Table 3.9).

64

Table 3. 9 Revisit Intention and Word of Mouth Scale (Kim et al., 2017)

Revisit intentions (α = .891, CR= 0.932, AVE= 0.872) Factor loadings

I will come back to this festival in the future. 0.933

I will make efforts to revisit again. 0.935

WOM intentions (α = .877, CR= 0.938, AVE= 0.884)

I will recommend this festival to people I know. 0.939

I will say positive things about this festival to other people. 0.941 Note: CR, construct reliability; AVE, average variance extracted.

3.4 Data Collection

The study used an on-site data collection through face to face questionnaire survey.

Six trained researchers collected the data at the 6th International Orange Blossom Carnival

on April 5-8, 2018. Random sampling design was chosen for the study to be able to make

“statistical” generalizations, which involve generalizing findings and inferences from a

representative statistical sample to the population from which the sample was drawn.

Onwuegbuzie and Collins (2007) stated that “if the objective of the study is to generalize

the quantitative and/or qualitative findings to the population from which the sample was

drawn (i.e., make inferences), then the researcher should attempt to select a sample for that

component that is random (p.285). Hence, the researchers were trained to select

participants randomly from the festival attendees sitting at tables. Researchers looked at

the last number on their driver licenses to determine the first person to be contacted. Next

the researcher selected every 5th person from the festival attendees sitting at tables,

proceeding from left to right. Each person was approached by the researcher to request

their participation in the study. If the person indicated that they are willing to volunteer for

the study, they received the informed consent form (In Turkish) providing information

about the study, possible benefits and risks of participation, confidentiality, and the contact

65

information of the investigator (Appendix E). The consent form informed participants that

they may discontinue the survey or withdraw from the study at any time. Next, the

researchers distributed the questionnaire to the study participant. They received a pen for

their use in filling out the questionnaire. Participants filled out and gave back the

questionnaires to the researchers on site. The questionnaire took average 10-15 min.

Although the Orange Blossom Carnival is celebrated all over the city, the main

Carnival locations were determined by the Adana Metropolitan Municipality was showed

in the map which are located in the Seyhan district. Accordingly, the data collected from

those locations. Location 1 includes a long street “Ziyapaşa Bulvarı” and a city park

“Atatürk Parkı”. Location 2 includes two streets “Mithat Saraçoğlu Caddesi” and “Mustafa

Gümüşdamla Caddesi”. Location 3 is formed by a street “Toros Caddesi” and a park

“Çocuk Parkı (Children Park)”. Location 4 is the biggest park in the city center, it’s name

is “Merkez Park (Central Park)”. All locations had similar festival attractions which

includes live music, street shows, food and handcraft sales. In addition to these attractions

location 4 was the place that has hosted the Carnival Parade.

66

Figure 3. 2 Data Collection Sites

Table 3. 10 Summary of the Data Collection Procedure Data collection Time Objective Instruments

On-site April 5th -8th To understand the

relationships between

the mentioned

constructs

• Festival motivations

• Festival satisfaction

• Perceived socio-cultural

benefits of festival

• Social well-being

• Subjective wellbeing

(Positive and negative affect,

and life satisfaction)

• Revisit intention and word of

mouth

• Demographic questions

3.5 Data Analysis

The study investigated the interrelationships between latent constructs of perceived

social impacts of a festival, motivations, satisfaction, social well-being, subjective well-

being of festival attendees, revisit intention and word of mouth. The first step of the data

67

analysis was data screening. All data were screened for normality, outliers and missing

data. Mahalanobis distance was conducted to detect the existence of any multivariate

outliers. Based on the Mahalanobis results multivariate outliers were deleted. The skewness

and kurtosis of the data were calculated in SPSS 25.0 to check the normality. When the

data are normally distributed, kurtosis should be between +3 and -3 and skewness between

+2 and -2 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Also, the assessment of missingness pattern was

conducted by using missing values analysis (MVA) procedure in SPSS 25. The results

revealed that the pattern of missingness was missing at random (MAR) which means that

missing values are not randomly distributed across all observations but are randomly

distributed within one or more subsamples in a survey (Kline, 2015). Since the pattern of

missingness was missing at random (MAR), missing values were imputed by using an EM

approach (Fichman & Cummings, 2003).

Second, descriptive data was analyzed quantitatively using Statistical Package for

the Social Sciences (SPSS) software version 25. Descriptive statistics such as means,

standard deviations, and percentages were examined to determine information about the

characteristics of the 6th Orange Blossom Carnival attendees.

Third, Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using Structural Equation Modeling

(SEM) with EQS 6.3 was employed to check the reliability and validity assessment of the

scales and to analyze the goodness of the proposed model fit. To assess goodness of fit,

evaluating multiple indices simultaneously was recommended (Bollen & Long,1993). This

study reported satorra-bentler chi square (S-B χ2) goodness-of-fit test for the robust model,

comparative fit index (CFI), the root mean square error of the approximation (RMSEA),

68

and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). To achieve goodness of fit,

comparative fit index (CFI) which is an incremental fit index that determines differences

in fit between the hypothesized model and the independence model (Byrne, 2006) must be

greater than .90. CFI bigger than .90 indicates an acceptable model fit, while CFI bigger

than .95 represents good fit (Gould et. al., 2008; Hu & Bentler, 1998). Another indicator is

the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) which has been cited as one of the

most informative criteria in covariance structure modeling (Byrne, 2006). RMSEA less

than .05 demonstrates good fit, and RMSEA ranging from 0.05 to 0.08 is a moderate fit

(Byrne, 2006). SRMR is a summary statistic which uses the standardized or correlation

matrices to show the overall difference between observed and predicted correlations

(Bollen 1989; Kline 2011). SRMR values less than 0.05 demonstrates good fits, values

between 0.05 to 0.08 indicate moderate fit (Kline, 2011). If these CFA results are

satisfactory, the researcher can have confidence to continue with the next step which is the

assessment of the structural model.

The CFA is also used to check the reliability and validity assessment of the scales.

Reliability represents how accurately or consistently an instrument measures data

(Sibthorp, 2000). Current study reported both Cronbach’s alpha (α) and Composite

reliability (CR) to examine reliability. The Composite reliability (CR) coefficient is similar

to and interpreted in the same way as Cronbach’s alpha, with scores above 0.6 considered

acceptable (Netemeyer et al., 2003).

Validity refers to the degree to which a given measure is representative of what it

is supposed to measure (Sibthorp, 2000). Kline (2005) suggests that convergent validity

69

and discriminant validity should be examined when conducting CFA. Convergent validity

is defined as “the items that are indicators of a specific construct should converge or share

a high proposition of variance in common” (Hair et al., 2006, p. 776). A good convergent

validity is achieved when the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) by that construct is

greater than 0.5 (Gotz, Liehr-Gobbers, & Krafft, 2010). Discriminant validity is used to

test statistically whether the constructs differed from each other. Positive discriminant

validity of the scales is achieved when the square root of the AVE of each factor is greater

than the correlations between pairs of factors (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

Finally, after the measurement quality was confirmed, a test of the structural model

was conducted to determine significance and magnitude of the relationships within the

model. A structural model shows the relationships between latent constructs and is akin to

multiple regression analysis (Schreiber, Nora, Stage, Barlow & King, 2006). Based on the

results of final structural model, some hypotheses were rejected while most of the

hypotheses failed to be rejected.

70

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS

This chapter begins with a discussion of the data screening process, followed by

the reporting of the descriptive statistics in the second section. The third section includes

the results of the measurement models. In the final section, the structural model and the

results of hypothesis testing are reported.

4.1 Data Screening

4.1.1 Screening of Multivariate Outliers

A total of 652 festival visitors were approached and invited to participate in the

survey. Of the 652 visitors, 550 accepted to be in the study and filled out the survey

(response rate: 84%). Of the 550 surveys, 534 were determined to be usable. Data with 534

cases were entered into SPSS software version 25.

Prior to beginning the analysis, research instrument items were examined, through

SPSS software version 25, to improve the accuracy of data entry and detect missing values

and outliers. First, the accuracy of the data entry was checked by observing the minimum

and maximum values. For instance, for a Likert type of scale, all values should be between

1 and 7, all other values which do not fall in this range were corrected. “Outliers are cases

with such extreme values on one variable or on a combination of variables that they distort

the resultant statistics” (Mertler & Vannatta, 2004, p. 25). Outliers can create serious

problems in multivariate data analysis and outliers can happen when data entry errors are

made by the researchers, the respondent is not a member of the population for which the

71

sample is intended, or the respondent is simply different from the remaining sample

(Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996).

Mahalanobis distance was conducted to detect the existence of any multivariate

outliers. “Mahalanobis distance is the distance of a case from the centroid of the remaining

cases where the centroid is the point created by the means of all the variables” (Tabachnick

& Fidell, 1996, p. 67). Mahalanobis distance calculated by using SPSS REGRESSION

with Residual = outlier (MAH, COOK’S D and SDR) syntax added to the menu choices.

Case level (ID) was used as the dummy DV because multivariate outliers among IVs are

not affected by it. According to Tabachnick and Fidell (2001), the remaining variables can

be considered independent ones. Mahalanobis distance was computed as a chi-square

statistic with degrees of freedom equal to the number of variables in the analysis

(Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). The acceptable value for Mahalanobis distance is p < .001

which is determined by comparing the obtained value for Mahalanobis distance to the chi-

square critical value (Mertler & Vannatta, 2004). In this study, SPSS software version 25

was used to assess outliers, and 48 cases ( 268, 33, 40, 314, 27, 34, 261, 358, 420, 32, 355,

425, 86, 459, 328, 334, 441, 22, 516, 315, 280, 43, 69, 182, 229, 294, 147, 405, 218, 290,

109, 12, 262, 112, 6, 316, 438, 7, 13, 138, 26, 125, 297, 499, 114, 415, 350, 141) were

found to have a distance greater than the critical value, indicating multivariate outliers,

therefore those cases were deleted. The remaining sample size was 486.

When the data are normally distributed, kurtosis should be between +3 and -3 and

skewness between +2 and -2 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). The skewness and kurtosis of

the data were calculated in SPSS 25.0, which uses the Fisher kurtosis. The results indicated

72

that the skewness of all items was between -2 and +2, and the Fisher kurtosis between -3

and +3, meaning the data were normally distributed. Table 4.1 through table 4.7 show the

skewness and kurtosis for all items.

Table 4.1 Skewness and Kurtosis Values for Motivation Items

Items Skewness Kurtosis

Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error

motivation1 -0.012 0.112 -1.224 0.224

motivation2 -0.988 0.112 0.212 0.223

motivation3 -0.823 0.111 -0.273 0.222

motivation4 -0.784 0.111 -0.329 0.222

motivation5 -0.695 0.111 -0.496 0.222

motivation6 -0.066 0.111 -1.373 0.222

motivation7 -1.353 0.111 0.723 0.222

motivation8 -1.313 0.112 1.251 0.223

motivation9 -1.508 0.112 1.829 0.224

motivation10 -1.459 0.111 1.622 0.222

motivation11 -1.058 0.111 0.345 0.222

motivation12 -0.916 0.113 0.528 0.225

motivation13 -1.065 0.112 0.442 0.224

motivation14 -0.575 0.112 -0.868 0.223

motivation15 -0.858 0.111 -0.265 0.222

motivation16 -1.347 0.111 1.293 0.222

motivation17 -1.478 0.111 2.049 0.222

motivation18 -0.833 0.111 -0.310 0.222

Table 4.2 Skewness and Kurtosis Values for Satisfaction Items



satisfaction1 -0.952 0.111 0.008 0.222

satisfaction2 -0.985 0.112 0.129 0.223

satisfaction3 -0.488 0.112 -0.807 0.224

satisfaction4 -0.372 0.112 -0.679 0.223

satisfaction5 -0.932 0.112 -0.076 0.223

satisfaction6 -1.132 0.112 0.468 0.223

satisfaction7 -0.976 0.111 0.103 0.222

73

Table 4. 3 Skewness and Kurtosis Values for Perceived Social Impacts Items



impact1 -1.504 0.111 1.611 0.222

impact2 -1.566 0.111 1.964 0.222

impact3 -1.526 0.111 1.812 0.222

impact4 -1.468 0.111 1.677 0.222

impact5 -1.379 0.111 1.438 0.222

impact6 -1.366 0.111 1.358 0.222

impact7 -1.257 0.111 1.005 0.222

impact8 -1.030 0.111 0.304 0.222

impact9 -1.181 0.111 0.711 0.222

impact10 -0.999 0.111 0.304 0.222

impact11 -0.884 0.111 0.116 0.222

impact12 -0.632 0.111 -0.554 0.222

impact13 -0.888 0.111 -0.092 0.222

impact14 -0.704 0.111 -0.507 0.222

impact15 -0.859 0.111 -0.141 0.222

impact16 -0.843 0.111 -0.014 0.222

impact17 -1.638 0.112 2.771 0.223

impact18 -1.773 0.112 2.858 0.223

impact19 -1.813 0.111 2.922 0.222

impact20 -0.955 0.111 -0.041 0.222

impact21 -0.371 0.111 -1.08 0.222

impact22 0.031 0.111 -1.285 0.222

impact23 0.445 0.112 -0.845 0.223

impact24 0.808 0.111 -0.592 0.222

impact25 0.233 0.111 -1.308 0.222

Table 4. 4 Skewness and Kurtosis Values for Social Well-being Items



socialwellbeing1 -0.229 0.112 -0.642 0.223





74

Table 4. 5 Skewness and Kurtosis Values for Positive and Negative Affects (PANAS)

Items



panas1 -0.687 0.111 -0.144 0.222

panas2 0.978 0.112 0.009 0.223

panas3 -0.656 0.112 -0.459 0.223

panas4 1.272 0.112 0.637 0.223

panas5 -0.554 0.112 -0.394 0.223

panas6 1.385 0.112 2.571 0.223

panas7 1.137 0.112 2.887 0.223

panas8 1.378 0.112 2.141 0.223

panas9 -0.774 0.112 -0.288 0.223

panas10 -0.626 0.112 -0.64 0.223

panas11 1.397 0.111 0.891 0.222

panas12 -0.058 0.112 -1.109 0.224

panas13 1.121 0.112 2.743 0.224

panas14 -0.323 0.112 -0.882 0.223

panas15 1.321 0.112 0.539 0.224

panas16 -0.593 0.112 -0.232 0.223

panas17 -0.787 0.112 0.017 0.223

panas18 1.191 0.111 0.35 0.222

panas19 -0.904 0.111 0.153 0.222

panas20 1.425 0.111 2.602 0.222

Table 4. 6 Skewness and Kurtosis Values for Life Satisfaction Items



lifesatisfaction1 -0.448 0.111 -0.163 0.222




lifesatisfaction5 0.138 0.111 -1.007 0.222

Table 4. 7 Skewness and Kurtosis Values for Intention and Word of Mouth Items



intention1 -1.094 0.111 0.159 0.222

intention2 -1.093 0.112 0.192 0.223

wom1 -1.196 0.111 0.423 0.222

wom2 -1.365 0.112 1.124 0.223

75

4.1.2 Missing Value Analysis

Missing data could be categorized into three groups: missing completely at random

(MCAR), missing at random (MAR), and not missing at random (MNAR) (Rubin, 1976).

MCAR means that missing values are randomly distributed across all observations while

MAR means that missing values are not randomly distributed across all observations but

are randomly distributed within one or more subsamples in a survey. Missing data in the

first two conditions are less problematic than in the third, because not missing at random

implies that missing values show a well-defined pattern (Kline, 2015). It is not known yet

how to calculate the probability of this form of missingness (Fichman & Cummings, 2003).

In this current study the test of missingness shows that the missing values are at random

across variables and cases (p < 0.0001). In this case missing values should be imputed

(Fichman & Cummings, 2003).

There are several approaches to deal with missing data: 1) complete case analysis-

listwise deletion, 2) available case analysis – pairwise deletion, 3) unconditional mean

imputation, 4) conditional mean imputation, usually using least squares regression 5)

maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) and, 6) multiple imputations (MI) (Fichman &

Cummings, 2003). Most of these methods assume missing values are MCAR (Fichman &

Cummings, 2003). In recent years, MLE is the most recommended method of imputation

because it assumes that missing values are MAR and it demands fewer statistical

assumptions of data by providing a more general-purpose solution to the problem of

missing data (Fichman & Cummings, 2003). The procedure for MLE is called Expectation

Maximization (EM) which uses other variables to impute a missing value (Expectation)

76

and tests if the value is most likely (Maximization). The EM procedure continues until it

reaches the most likely value.

In current study, the assessment of missingness pattern was conducted by using

missing values analysis (MVA) procedure in SPSS 25, the study used an EM approach.

The results revealed that the pattern of missingness was “MAR” as indicated by Little's

MCAR test: Chi-Square = 14031.924, DF = 11.826, p < 0.000. Also, the output showed

that there were no variables with 5% or more of the values missing which confirms the

missingness was MAR warranting imputation.

4.2 Descriptive Statistics

4.2.1 Demographic Profiles of Respondents

Respondents were asked where they live to understand if they are tourists or

residents. As the descriptive results in table 4.8 indicates 76% of the respondents are the

residents of Adana while 24% are attending the festival from other cities.

Table 4. 8 Frequency Distribution of Respondents by Residency

Residence Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

In Adana 367 75.5 76 76

In Another city 116 23.9 24 100

Total 483 99.4 100

The gender distributions of the participants were shown in table 4.9. The sample

includes 291 female (60.5%) and 190 male (39.5%).

Table 4. 9 Frequency Distribution of Respondents by Gender

Gender Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Female 291 59.9 60.5 60.5

Male 190 39.1 39.5 100.0

Total 481 99.0 100.0

77

Age was used as a continuous variable in this study. The age of the respondents

ranged from 18 to 75, with an average of 35 with a standard deviation of 12.51. Most of

respondents were between 26 and 35 (29.2%), followed by with the remaining ranges, 22-

25(20%), 36-45 (16.7), 18-21 (14.6%), 46-55 (9.9%), 56-65 (4.7%), above 65 (2.3%).

Table 4. 10 Frequency Distribution of Respondents by Age

Age range Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

18-21 71 14.6 15 15

22-25 97 20 20.5 35.5

26-35 142 29.2 30.1 65.6

36-45 81 16.7 17.1 82.7

46-55 48 9.9 10.1 92.8

56-65 23 4.7 4.9 97.7

Above 65 11 2.3 2.3 100

Total 473 97.3 100.0

The marital status distribution shows that 57.9% of the participants were married

while 42.1 % were single.

Table 4. 11 Frequency Distribution of Respondents by Marital Status

Marital

status Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Single 277 57.0 57.9 57.9

Married 201 41.4 42.1 100.0

Total 478 98.4 100.0

Respondents were also asked for their highest level of education. As the descriptive

results in Table 4.12 indicates 42.1% of the survey respondents had earned four-year

degrees, followed by high school at 25.5%, graduate degree at 13%, two-year degree at

15.5 and elementary school at 4%.

78

Table 4. 12 Frequency Distribution of Respondents by Education Level

Educational level Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Elementary 19 3.9 4.0 4.0

High school 122 25.1 25.5 29.5

Two-year college 74 15.2 15.5 45.0

Four-year college 201 41.4 42.0 87.0

Graduate school 62 12.8 13.0 100.0

Total 478 98.4 100.0

Majority of the participants were employed full-time (40%), and one-quarter (25%)

were students, 13.4% were unemployed, 8.4% were self-employed, 7.1% were employed

part-time, 6.1% were retired.

Table 4. 13 Frequency Distribution of Respondents by Employment

Employment status Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Employed full time 191 39.3 40.0 40.0

Employed part time 34 7.0 7.1 47.1

Self-employed 40 8.2 8.3 55.4

Student 120 24.7 25.1 80.5

Retired 29 6.0 6.1 86.6

Unemployed 64 13.2 13.4 100.0

Total 478 98.4 100.0

The results to the question concerning income level are summarized in Table 4.14.

As this table shows, the responses were widely distributed, with the most respondents

earning 0 to 1000TL (Turkish Currency- Lira) (23.3%), followed by 1001TL to 2000TL

(22.2%), 3001TL to 4000TL (15.6%), 4001TL to 5000TL (10.7%), and 5000TL and up

(8.9%).

79

Table 4. 14 Frequency Distribution of Respondents by Income Level

Income range Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

0-1000 TL 105 21.6 23.3 23.3

1001-2000 TL 100 20.6 22.2 45.6

2001-3000 TL 87 17.9 19.3 64.9

3001-4000 TL 70 14.4 15.6 80.4

4001-5000 TL 48 9.9 10.7 91.1

5000 TL and up 40 8.2 8.9 100.0

Total 450 92.6 100.0

TL: Turkish Currency

4.2.2 Descriptive Statistics for Festival Experiences

Respondents were asked about the number of times they had attended the Orange

Blossom Carnival, table 4.15 shows this frequency distribution. More than a quarter of the

respondents, 22.6%, indicated that they were first-time visitors, followed by those for

whom this was their third visit at 22.2%, their second at 21.4%, their fourth at 12.7%, their

fifth at 10.6% and their sixth at 10.6%.

Table 4. 15 Frequency Distribution of Respondents by Experience of Orange Blossom

Carnival

Question statement Frequency Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Including this year, how many

times have you attended this

festival?

1 109 22.4 22.6 22.6

2 103 21.2 21.4 44

3 107 22 22.2 66.2

4 61 12.6 12.7 78.8

5 51 10.5 10.6 89.4

6 51 10.5 10.6 100

Total 482 99.2 100

Respondents were also asked about the number of times they had attended the

Orange Blossom Carnival, table 4.16 shows this frequency distribution. Approximately a

half of the participants (50.7%) indicated that they had attended 1 festival for the last year,

more than a quarter of the respondents (25.5%) reported that they had attended 2 festivals

for the last year followed by 3 visits (10.6%), 4 visits 5.6% and more than 4 visits 7.7%.

80

Table 4. 16 Frequency Distribution of Respondents by Experience of Festivals

Question statement Frequency Percent Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

How many times have you been to any

festival this year?

1 245 50.4 50.7 50.7

2 123 25.3 25.5 76.2

3 51 10.5 10.6 86.7

4 27 5.6 5.6 92.3

5 16 3.3 3.3 95.7

6 6 1.2 1.2 96.9

7 3 0.6 0.6 97.5

8 3 0.6 0.6 98.1

9 1 0.2 0.2 98.3

10 5 1 1 99.4

11 2 0.4 0.4 99.8

20 1 0.2 0.2 100

Total 483 99.4 100

Respondents were asked about the number of days they had attended the 6th Orange

Blossom Carnival in 2018. As Table 4.17 shows, the majority of the respondents, 40.

indicated that it is their first day at the festival, followed by the second day (30.8%), third

day (17.6%), fourth day (11.3%).

Table 4. 17 Frequency Distribution of Respondents by Attending Dates of Festival

Question statement Frequency Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

How many days have you attended the

2018 International Orange Blossom

Carnival including today?

1 195 40.1 40.3 40.3

2 149 30.7 30.8 71.1

3 85 17.5 17.6 88.6

4 55 11.3 11.4 100.0

Total

484 99.6 100.0

Respondents were also asked with whom they have attended to the festival. The

frequency distribution shows that most of the respondents attended the festival with their

friends (48.2%) and family (39.5%). 6.9% of the respondents were alone while 4% attended

the festival with an organization.

81

Table 4. 18 Frequency Distribution of Respondents by Companion

Party/Companion Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Alone 33 6.8 6.9 6.9

Family 190 39.1 39.5 46.4

Friends 232 47.7 48.2 94.6

Organization 19 3.9 4.0 98.5

Other 7 1.4 1.5 100.0

Total 481 99.0 100.0

15.8% of the respondents indicated that they work at the festival while 84.2%

indicated that they do not have any active role at the festival.

Table 4. 19 Frequency Distribution of Respondents by the Type of Participation

Status of participation Frequency Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Active Participant 76 15.6 15.8 15.8

Passive Participant 406 83.5 84.2 100.0

Total 482 99.2 100.0

Among the active participants, 61.6% were paid workers while 5.8% were

volunteers at the festival.

Table 4. 20 Frequency Distribution of Respondents by the Type of Work at the Festival

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Voluntary 28 5.8 38.4 38.4

Paid 45 9.3 61.6 100.0

Total 73 15.0 100.0

4.2.3 Model Construct Descriptives

The total number of participants (N) who answered the item, mean for each

dimension and standard deviation for all items and variables used in the structural model

for this study are shown in Tables 4.21 through 4.27. The measurement scale is in 7-point

Likert type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree), 2 (disagree), 3 (somewhat disagree),

82

4 (neither agree nor disagree), 5 (somewhat agree), 6 (agree), 7 (strongly agree). A higher

average means that participants agreed more with the statements.

Table 4. 21 Descriptive Statistics for Motivation

Dimension Item N Mean SD

Socialization

1. To observe the other people attending the festival 475 3.85 2.08

2. For a chance to be with people who are enjoying

themselves 477 5.48 1.61

3. To be with people of similar interest 481 5.21 1.77

4. To be with people who enjoy the same things I do 480 5.22 1.75

5. Because I enjoy the festival crowds 481 5.10 1.81

6. To experience the festival myself 480 3.98 2.16

7. So I could be with my friends 480 5.60 1.83

Escape and

excitement

8. For a change of pace from my everyday life 476 5.74 1.51

9. To have a change from my daily routine 473 5.87 1.48

10. To experience new and different things 481 5.88 1.42

11. Because I was curious 480 5.54 1.60

12. To get away from the demands of life 471 5.82 1.22

13. Because it is stimulating and exciting 475 5.72 1.45

Family

togetherness

14. Because I thought the entire family would enjoy it 478 4.79 2.04

15. So the family could do something together 481 5.17 1.84

Event novelty

16. Because I enjoy special events 481 5.81 1.47

17. Because I like the variety of things to see and do 481 5.95 1.33

18. Because the Carnival is unique 481 5.33 1.79

*A 7-point Likert-type scale was used ranging from 1 (strongly disagree), 2 (disagree), 3 (somewhat disagree), 4

(neither agree nor disagree), 5 (somewhat agree), 6 (agree), 7 (strongly agree).

Table 4. 22 Descriptive Statistics for Festival Satisfaction


Satisfaction

1. My choice to visit this Carnival was a wise one 480 5.42 1.72

2. I am sure it was the right decision to visit this Carnival 477 5.46 1.68

3. This was one of the best festivals I have ever visited 474 4.91 1.85

4. My experience at this Carnival was exactly what I needed 476 4.74 1.75

5. I am satisfied with my decision to visit this Carnival 479 5.34 1.75

6. This Carnival made me feel happy 478 5.50 1.69

7. I enjoyed myself at this Carnival 481 5.39 1.70 *A 7-point Likert-type scale was used ranging from 1 (strongly disagree), 2 (disagree), 3 (somewhat disagree), 4 (neither agree nor

disagree), 5 (somewhat agree), 6 (agree), 7 (strongly agree).

83

Table 4. 23 Descriptive Statistics for Perceived Social Impacts of Festival Dimension Item N Mean SD

Community

benefits

1. Festival enhances image of the community 480 5.96 1.49

2. My community gains positive recognition as result of festival 480 6.04 1.38

3. Community identity is enhanced through festival 481 6.05 1.36

4. Festival is a celebration of my community 480 5.99 1.38

5. Festival leaves ongoing positive cultural impact in community 481 5.96 1.37

6. Festival helps me show others why my community is unique

and special

481 5.96 1.36

7. Festival contributes to sense of community well-being 482 5.85 1.41

8. Festival helps improve quality of life in community 480 5.61 1.53

Individual

benefits

9. Festival provides opportunities for community residents to

experience new activities

481 5.78 1.45

10. Residents participating in festival have opportunity to learn

new things

481 5.62 1.49

11. I enjoy meeting festival performers/workers 480 5.56 1.49

12. I feel a personal sense of pride and recognition by participating

in festival

483 5.20 1.69

13. Festival provides community with opportunity to

discover/develop new cultural skills/talents

483 5.57 1.51

14. I am exposed to variety of cultural experiences through festival 482 5.39 1.58

15. Festival acts as a showcase for new ideas 480 5.49 1.54

16. Festival contributes to my personal health/well-being 482 5.47 1.52

Social Cost

17. Festival leads to disruption in normal routines of community

residents

479 6.12 1.21

18. My community is overcrowded during festival 478 6.35 1.06

19. Car/bus/truck/RV traffic is increased to unacceptable levels

during festival

483 6.23 1.27

20. Community recreational facilities are overused during festival 480 5.34 1.81

21. Litter is increased to unacceptable levels during festival 482 4.54 2.03

22. Festival is intrusion into lives of community residents 483 3.83 2.06

23. Festival overtaxes available community human resources 478 3.30 1.91

24. Influx of festival visitors reduces privacy we have within our

community

480 2.84 1.99

25. Noise levels are increased to an unacceptable level during

festival

481 3.63 2.16

*A 7-point Likert-type scale was used ranging from 1 (strongly disagree), 2 (disagree), 3 (somewhat disagree), 4 (neither agree nor


Table 4. 24 Descriptive Statistics for Social Well-being


Social well-being (SWB)

1. I am more able to make sense of what is happening in the

world

478 4.53 1.71

2. I feel I have more things in common with others 478 4.82 1.68

3. I feel more positive about other people 481 4.97 1.66

4. I feel I now have more to contribute to the world 482 4.78 1.65

5. I feel more hopeful about the way things are in the world 482 4.79 1.73 *A 7-point Likert-type scale was used ranging from 1 (strongly disagree), 2 (disagree), 3 (somewhat disagree), 4 (neither agree nor


84

Table 4. 25 Descriptive Statistics for Positive and Negative Affect Dimension Item N Mean SD

Positive Affect

1. Interested 484 5.08 1.65

2. Excited 478 4.92 1.81

3. Strong 478 4.85 1.71

4. Enthusiastic 479 5.03 1.78

5. Proud 478 4.81 1.91

6. Alert 475 3.75 1.93

7. Inspired 476 4.37 1.89

8. Determined 479 4.88 1.67

9. Attentive 479 5.06 1.67

10. Active 481 5.37 1.61

Negative Affect

11. Distressed 479 2.34 1.58

12. Upset 477 2.14 1.58

13. Guilty 477 1.48 1.02

14. Scared 478 1.63 1.25

15. Hostile 478 1.61 1.34

16. Irritable 480 2.04 1.58

17. Ashamed 475 1.67 1.35

18. Nervous 475 2.14 1.70

19. Jittery 482 2.23 1.68

20. Afraid 482 1.65 1.28 *A 7-point Likert-type scale was used ranging from 1 (strongly disagree), 2 (disagree), 3 (somewhat disagree), 4


Table 4. 26 Descriptive Statistics for Life Satisfaction Dimension Item N Mean SD

Life

Satisfaction

1. In most ways my life is close to my ideal. 480 4.52 1.54

2. The conditions of my life are excellent. 480 4.19 1.46

3. I am satisfied with my life. 483 4.38 1.55

4. So far, I have gotten the important things I want in life. 479 4.25 1.60

5. If I could live my life over, I would change almost

nothing.

481 3.49 1.83



Table 4. 27 Descriptive Statistics for Revisit Intention and Word of Mouth Dimension Item N Mean SD

Revisit

Intention

1. I will come back to this Carnival in the future 481 5.52 1.75

2. I will make efforts to revisit again 478 5.56 1.72

Word of

Mouth

3. I will recommend this Carnival to people I know 481 5.69 1.68

4. I will say positive things about this Carnival to

other people.

479 5.76 1.61



85

4.3 Measurement Models: Confirmatory Factor Analyses

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)

with EQS 6.3 was employed to analyze the goodness of the proposed model fit. CFA was

the appropriate analysis technique for this study since the research aim was to test

hypotheses regarding the structural relationships between factors in a specific model. SEM

is a common method for testing various theoretical models that hypothesize how sets of

variables define constructs and the constructs relate to one another (Lomax & Schumacker,

2004). SEM covers two main steps; measurement model (validates the factorial structure

of the hypothesized model using confirmatory factor analysis) and structural models

(examines the causal relationships among the latent variables) (Anderson& Gerbing,

1988). The CFA is used to check the reliability and validity assessment of the scales. If the

CFA results are satisfactory, the researcher can have confidence to continue with the next

step which is the assessment of the structural model.

Measurement models in this study includes first-order and second-order models.

First-order models indicates the relationships among latent variables and observed

variables. Second-order models show a higher level of analysis as the latent variables are

explained by other latent variables.

Goodness-of-fit indicates how well the specific model reproduces the observed

covariance matrix among the indicator items (Hair et al., 2006). To assess goodness of fit,

evaluating multiple indices simultaneously was recommended (Bollen& Long,1993). This

study reported Satorra-Bentler chi square (S-B χ2) goodness-of-fit test for the robust

model, comparative fit index (CFI), the root mean square error of the approximation

86

(RMSEA), and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). Satorra-Bentler

Scaled Chi-Square statistic (S-B χ2) is a robust corrected chi-square value for non-

normality (Satorra & Bentler, 2010).). For models with large samples, the chi square is

almost always statistically significant, so it is important to look at other indicators of fit

(Byrne, 2006). To achieve goodness of fit, comparative fit index (CFI) which is an

incremental fit index that determines differences in fit between the hypothesized model and

the independence model (Byrne, 2006) must be greater than .90. CFI bigger than .90

indicates an acceptable model fit, while CFI bigger than .95 represents good fit (Gould et.

al., 2008; Hu & Bentler, 1998). Another indicator is the root mean square error of

approximation (RMSEA) which has been cited as one of the most informative criteria in

covariance structure modeling (Byrne, 2006). RMSEA less than .05 demonstrates good fit,

and RMSEA ranging from 0.05 to 0.08 is a moderate fit (Byrne, 2006).

The covariance between the factors was estimated (Byrne, 2006). The Lagrange

Multiplier (LM) function was used to identify sources of misfit in the models. The LM test

give suggestions to improve model fit by changing parameters, such as removing an item

or estimating fixed parameters (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001, p. 721). The reason for misfit

is the covariances of items that do not match the model-implied covariances (Gould et. al.,

2008).

For all of the models in the current study, Multivariate Kurtosis values (Mardia’s

coefficient) was above 5, indicating a significant kurtosis, so multivariate normality was

not achieved, it is a fact not uncommon in behavioral and social research (Micceri, 1989).

Presence of nonnormality can affect parameter estimates, standard errors, and overall fit

87

(Bagozzi & Youjae, 1988). To minimize potential problems, maximum likelihood

estimation procedures and robust methods yielding the Santorra-Bentler test statistic were

employed (Hu, Bentler, & Kano, 1992).

Reliability represents how accurately or consistently an instrument measures data

(Sibthorp, 2000). Cronbach’s coefficient alpha is the most common measure of reliability.

DeVellis defined the reliability coefficient (alpha) as “an indication of the proportion of

variance in the scales score that is attributable to the true score” (2003, p. 94). However,

Cronbach’s α has been criticized as it may not be an appropriate measure of reliability in

SEM (Yang & Green, 2010). Because the coefficient alpha wrongly assumes that all items

contribute equally to reliability (Bollen, 1989). Composite reliability (CR) proposed by

Fornell and Larcker (1981) is a better alternative for reliability, which measures reliability

based on standardized loadings and measurement error for each item (Bollen, 1989).

Current study reported both Cronbach’s α and Composite reliability (CR) to be able to

compare the findings with studies using one of those reliability measures. It has been

suggested that coefficients of 0.70 and higher is a reasonable reliability of the measure

(Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Some researchers have argued that Cronbach’s alphas

higher than 0.6 can be considered acceptable, if the research is in the exploratory stage

(Hatcher, 1994) or when the number of items in a scale is less than six (Cortina, 1993).

Netemeyer et al., (2003) have also suggested that a factor is considered reliable when its

composite reliability is greater than 0.6.

Reliability is “only a necessary – not a sufficient – condition for validity”

(Thompson, 2004, p. 4). Validity refers to the degree to which a given measure is

88

representative of what it is supposed to measure (Sibthorp, 2000). Kline (2005) suggests

that convergent validity and discriminant validity should be examined when conducting

CFA. Convergent validity is defined as “the items that are indicators of a specific construct

should converge or share a high proposition of variance in common” (Hair et al., 2006, p.

776). A good convergent validity is achieved when the Average Variance Extracted (AVE)

by that construct is greater than 0.5 (Gotz, Liehr-Gobbers, & Krafft, 2010). Discriminant

validity is used to test statistically whether the constructs differed from each other. Positive

discriminant validity of the scales is achieved when the square root of the AVE of each

factor is greater than the correlations between pairs of factors (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

4.3.1 Measurement Model for Motivation

A Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) procedure using EQS 6.3, under ROBUST

function with LaGrange Multiplier (LM) Test set-on, was performed on the 18 item

Motivation Scale (Table 4.28) to verify if the statements appropriately load on the

respective dimensions. All motivation items were measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale,

with anchors of “strongly disagree” (1) and “strongly agree” (7). The motivation scale was

adapted from Yolal et al. (2009). Their exploratory factor analysis of the18 items resulted

in four factors—socialization, escape and excitement, family togetherness, and event

novelty. The factors explained almost 58% of the variance in motivation. All of the

individual loadings were more than .51, and the reliability coefficients of the factors ranged

from .678 for event novelty to .799 for socialization.

Initially first-order CFAs were done to confirm the first-order latent variables (the

dimensions under the exogenous latent variable which are discussed below). Then a

89

second-order CFA was done to confirm if the motivation is explained by the following

latent variables (Socialization, escape and excitement, family togetherness, event novelty).

Table 4. 28 Motivation Items

Dimension Code Item

Socialization

MOTSOC1 To observe the other people attending the festival

MOTSOC2 For a chance to be with people who are enjoying themselves

MOTSOC3 To be with people of similar interest

MOTSOC4 To be with people who enjoy the same things I do

MOTSOC5 Because I enjoy the festival crowds

MOTSOC6 To experience the festival myself

MOTSOC7 So I could be with my friends

Escape and

excitement

MOTESE1 For a change of pace from my everyday life

MOTESE2 To have a change from my daily routine

MOTESE3 To experience new and different things

MOTESE4 Because I was curious

MOTESE5 To get away from the demands of life

MOTESE6 Because it is stimulating and exciting

Family

togetherness

MOTFAM1 Because I thought the entire family would enjoy it

MOTFAM2 So the family could do something together

Event novelty

MOTNOV1 Because I enjoy special events

MOTNOV2 Because I like the variety of things to see and do

MOTNOV3 Because the Carnival is unique

4.3.1.1 First Order CFA for Socialization

A first-order CFA was conducted to confirm socialization which is the first

dimension of motivation. To identify sources of misfit, the covariances between V and F

variables (GVF) and covariance between errors (PEE) functions were specified (Byrne,

2006). The analysis of the goodness of fit statistics of the initial CFA seen in Table 4.29

not very good (S-B χ2=90.32; df:14; CFI = 0.923; RMSEA = 0.106). Three items

MOTSOC1, “To observe the other people attending the festival” (loading = 0.34, r-squared

= 0.116), MOTSOC5, “Because I enjoy the festival crowds” (loading=0.44, r-squared =

0.193) and MOTSOC6, “To experience the festival myself” (loading=0.32, r-

90

squared=0.106) had low loadings, therefore the three items were dropped because they did

not contribute to the latent construct of socialization, and the model was re-run under the

same conditions. In this study, items with standardized loadings greater than .50 were

retained (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013.). Although .50 is not a desirable loading, it is

important to have sufficient indicator for model identification (Weston & Gore, 2006).

Deleting the three items with low correlations had a great contribution to improve the

model (S-B χ2 = 9.43; df = 2; CFI = 0.988; SRMR=0.027; RMSEA = 0.088) (Table 4.29).

The final first-order CFA model for socialization was presented in Figure 4.1.

Table 4. 29 Goodness of Fit Summary for Socialization

Parameters Initial Model Final Model

Goodness of Fit Summary for Method = Robust

Chi-Square 90.3179 9.4328

Degree of Freedom 14 2

P value for the Chi-Square p < 0.001 0.00895

FIT INDICES (Robust)

BENTLER-BONETT NORMED FIT INDEX 0.911 0.985

BENTLER-BONETT NON-NORMED FIT INDEX 0.884 0.964

COMPARATIVE FIT INDEX (CFI) 0.923 0.988

STANDARDIZED RMR (SRMR) 0.064 0.027

ROOT MEAN-SQUARE ERROR OF APPROXIMATION (RMSEA) 0.106 0.088

90% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL OF RMSEA 0.085-0.127 0.037-0.147

Figure 4. 1 First-Order CFA Model for Socialization

E8*

MOTSOC2

MOTSOC3

MOTSOC4

MOTSOC7

SOCI1.0

0.72*

E3*0.70

0.89*

E4*0.46

0.87* E5*0.49

0.56*

0.83

0.72*

0.70

0.89*

0.46

0.87* 0.49

0.56*

0.83

91

4.3.1.2 First Order CFA for Escape and Excitement

The analysis of the goodness of fit statistics of the initial CFA seen in Table 4.30

showed a relatively poor fit (S-B χ2=60.80; df:9; CFI = 0.936; SRMR=0.051; RMSEA =

0.109). LM test suggested an error covariance between the items MOTESE1 (“For a change

of pace from my everyday life”), and MOTESE2 (“To have a change from my daily

routine”). The wording of the items is very similar, and the might have caused confusion

among participants, therefore failed to tell the difference between the two items. The

suggested error covariance was added into the model, and the new model seem to be

improved a lot (S-B χ2=20.67; df=8; CFI = 0.984; SRMR=0.030; RMSEA = 0.057).

Table 4. 30 Goodness of Fit Summary for Escape and Excitement



Chi-Square 60.7973 20.6727


P value for the Chi-Square p < 0.001 0.00807








92

Figure 4. 2 First-Order CFA Model for Escape and Excitement

4.3.1.3 First Order CFA for Combined Family Togetherness and Novelty

Since the model for Family togetherness is under identified (2 items) and the model

for novelty is just identified (3 items), combined model was utilized in order to get loading

estimates. The measurement model appeared to be good (S-B χ2=16.80; df=4; CFI = 0.983;

SRMR= 0.041; RMSEA = 0.081), thus no further analysis was needed for the first order

CFA for the Combined Family Togetherness and Novelty measurement model.

Table 4. 31 Goodness of Fit Summary for Combined Family Togetherness and Novelty

Parameters


Chi-Square 16.7913

Degree of Freedom 4

P value for the Chi-Square 0.00212


BENTLER-BONETT NORMED FIT INDEX 0.978

BENTLER-BONETT NON-NORMED FIT INDEX 0.958

COMPARATIVE FIT INDEX (CFI) 0.983

STANDARDIZED RMR (SRMR) 0.041

ROOT MEAN-SQUARE ERROR OF APPROXIMATION (RMSEA) 0.081

90% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL OF RMSEA 0.044-0.123

E14*

MOTESE1

MOTESE2

MOTESE3

MOTESE4

MOTESE5

MOTESE6

ESE 1.0

0.74*

E9*0.67

0.82*

E10*0.57

0.85*

E11*0.52

0.68*E12*0.74

0.68*

E13*0.740.71*

0.70

0.52*

0.74*

0.67

0.82*

0.57

0.85*

0.52

0.68*0.74

0.68*

0.740.71*

0.70

0.52*

93

Figure 4. 3 First-Order CFA Model for Combined Family Togetherness and Novelty

4.3.1.4 Motivation Second Order

Since the construct of motivation is multidimensional, a second order of CFA was

run following the first-order CFAs. In the second-order CFA, the second order latent

variable, motivation (MOT), is added to the model. Second-order CFA is used to confirm

the motivation measurement model. Motivation is the second-order latent variable and the

four dimensions (socialization, escape and excitement, family togetherness, and event

novelty) are the first-order latent variables. The final second-order CFA model for

Motivation is shown in Figure 4.4. The figure shows the path analysis for the measures,

errors, and latent variables. “E” represents the error variance of the measured variables and

the disturbance variables are represented by “D”.

The initial CFA results indicate an acceptable fit (S-B χ2 = 300.08; df = 85; CFI =

0.926; SRMR = 0.083; RMSEA = 0.072), but there was a plenty of room to achieve a better

fit by following LM test suggestions. LM test indicated that model fit can be improved by

adding some error covariances between the following items (MOTSOC2-MOTSOC4;

E19*

MOTFAM1

MOTFAM2

FAM 1.0

0.69*

E15*0.72

0.98*E16*0.18

MOTNOV1

MOTNOV2

MOTNOV3

NOV 1.0

0.91*

E17*0.41

0.89* E18*0.46

0.56*

0.83

0.55*

0.69*

0.72

0.98*0.18

0.91*

0.41

0.89* 0.46

0.56*

0.83

0.55*

94

MOTSOC2-MOTSOC7; MOTESE1-MOTESE2; MOTESE4-MOTESE5). Adding the

mentioned covariances has improved the model fit as seen in Table 4.32.

Table 4. 32 Goodness of Fit Summary for the Second Order Measurement Model



Chi-Square 300.0793 244.1692


P value for the Chi-Square p < 0.001 p < 0.001








The means, standard deviations, Cronbach’s α, Composite reliability (CR), AVE

(Average Variance Extracted) and fit indices for both first and second order CFAs for

motivation were summarized on the Table 4.33. The model is reliable since both composite

reliability and Cronbach’s α values are higher than 0.7. Cronbach’s α for the second order

motivation model is found as 0.916 and Composite reliability (CR) found as 0.945.

Composite reliability for each dimension ranges from 0.83 to 0.89. In the original scale the

reliability coefficients for the factors were reported as they were ranged from .678 to .799

(Yolal et al., 2009).

All factor loadings were strong and statistically significant as shown in Table 4.33.

All constructs’ average variances explained (AVEs), which measures the amount of

variance captured by the construct among the individual indicators compared to the

variance due to measurement error (Gotz, Gobbers, & Krafft, 2010) are greater than 0.50

95

(see Table 4.33). Therefore, the findings provide evidence of convergent validity among

constructs. In terms of discriminant validity, the square roots of the AVE in the diagonal

should be bigger than values of factor correlations between pairs of factors (Fornell &

Larcker, 1981). As indicated in Table 4.34, the majority dimensions are discriminant valid,

however Event Novelty (NOV) and Escape and Excitement (ESE) appear to be highly

correlated (0.82). However, this is less of an issue with the reliability of parameter

estimations as the two dimensions belong to the same construct and AVEs for each

dimension is greater than .5 (Kline, 2016).

Table 4. 33 Measurement Model for Motivation

Dimension Item code Mean SD Loading

(λ)

Cronbach's

Alpha (α)

CR

(Rho) AVE Fit Indices

2nd order

loading

(λ)

Socialization

MOTSOC2 5.47 1.61 0.72

0.84 0.85 0.595

χ2 = 9.43,

df =2, p=0.009, CFI = 0.99,

SRMR= 0.027,

RMSEA=0.09,

CI = 0.037,

0.147, N=486

0.67 MOTSOC3 5.20 1.78 0.89

MOTSOC4 5.22 1.75 0.87

MOTSOC7 5.60 1.82 0.56

Escape and

excitement

MOTESE1 5.71 1.52 0.74

0.88 0.89 0.561

χ2 = 20.67, df =8, p=0.008,

CFI = 0.98,

SRMR=0.057, RMSEA=0.06,

CI = 0.027, 0.088, N=486

0.95

MOTESE2 5.85 1.49 0.82

MOTESE3 5.88 1.42 0.85

MOTESE4 5.52 1.61 0.68

MOTESE5 5.80 1.22 0.68

MOTESE6 5.72 1.44 0.71

Family togetherness

MOTFAM1 4.78 2.03 0.69 0.82 0.83 0.720

Fit indices are

meaningless, the model is

under identified

0.58

MOTFAM2 5.17 1.83 0.98

Event

novelty

MOTNOV1 5.80 1.47 0.91

0.83 0.84 0.640

Fit indices are

meaningless,

the model is just identified

0.91 MOTNOV2 5.94 1.33 0.89

MOTNOV3 5.33 1.79 0.56

χ2 = 244.17, df =82, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.95, SRMR=0.057, RMSEA=0.06, CI = 0.055, 0.073, N = 486

96

Table 4. 34 Factor Correlations for Motivation Construct

SOCI ESE FAM NOV

SOCI 0.77 ESE 0.61 0.75

FAM 0.36 0.43 0.85

NOV 0.57 0.82 0.45 0.80

Note: Diagonal bolded values are the square roots of AVE’s for each factor

See Table 4.33 for the abbreviations of dimensions

97

Figure 4. 4 Second-Order CFA Model for Motivation

MOTSOC2

E19*

MOTSOC2

MOTSOC3

MOTSOC4

MOTSOC7

SOC 1.0

0.88*

E3*0.47

0.79*

E4*0.61

0.92 E5*0.39

0.60*

E8*0.80

MOTESE1

MOTESE2

MOTESE3

MOTESE4

MOTESE5

MOTESE6

ESE 1.0

0.73*

E9*0.69

0.80*

E10*0.60

0.84 E11*0.54

0.64*

E12*0.77

0.65*

E13*0.76

0.77*

E14*0.64

MOTFAM1

MOTFAM2

FAM 1.0

0.71*

E15*0.70

0.96E16*0.29

MOTNOV1

MOTNOV2

MOTNOV3

NOV 1.0

0.87*

E17*0.50

0.93 E18*0.36

0.55*

0.84

0.54*

-0.47*

-1.16*

0.25*

MOT 1.0

0.67*

D1*

0.74

0.95*

D2*

0.32

0.58*

D3*

0.810.91*

D4*

0.41

0.88*

0.47

0.79*

0.61

0.92 0.39

0.60*

0.80

0.73*

0.69

0.80*

0.60

0.84 0.54

0.64*

0.77

0.65*

0.76

0.77*

0.64

0.71*

0.70

0.960.29

0.87*

0.50

0.93 0.36

0.55*

0.84

0.54*

-0.47*

-1.16*

0.25*

0.67*

0.74

0.95*

0.32

0.58*

0.810.91*

0.41

98

4.3.2 Measurement Model for Festival Satisfaction


function with LaGrange Multiplier (LM) Test set-on, was performed on the 7 item Festival

Satisfaction Scale (Table 4.35) to validate the factorial structure of the construct. The

Festival satisfaction scale was adapted from Lee, Kyle and Scott (2012) Respondents were

asked to rate their level of agreement using a 7-point Likert-type scale where 1 is “strongly

disagree” and 7 is “strongly agree.” Lee et al. (2012) reported both composite reliability

and Cronbach’s α values as 0.95 and the loadings of the items were ranged from .79 to

0.90.

The initial CFA results indicate a good fit. CFI bigger than .95 represents good fit

(Gould et. al., 2008; Hu & Bentler, 1998). CFI found as 0.962. RMSEA less than 0.05

demonstrates good fit, and RMSEA ranging from 0.05 to 0.08 is a moderate fit (Byrne,

2006). RMSEA looks poor (0.121), but it may have been impacted by the low degrees of

freedom (Table 4.36). The model is reliable, both composite reliability and Cronbach’s α

values are 0.97 (Table 4.37). The model is also valid as shown by AVE value of 0.807

(Table 4.37). The final CFA model for Satisfaction was shown in Figure 4.5.

Table 4. 35 Satisfaction Items

Factor Code Item

Satisfaction (SAT)

SAT1 My choice to visit this Carnival was a wise one

SAT2 I am sure it was the right decision to visit this Carnival

SAT3 This was one of the best festivals I have ever visited

SAT4 My experience at this Carnival was exactly what I needed

SAT5 I am satisfied with my decision to visit this Carnival

SAT6 This Carnival made me feel happy

SAT7 I enjoyed myself at this Carnival

99

Table 4. 36 Goodness of Fit Summary for the Measurement Model for Satisfaction

Parameters


Chi-Square 113.6023

Degree of Freedom 14

P value for the Chi-Square p<0.001








Figure 4. 5 CFA Model for Satisfaction

E26*

SAT1

SAT2

SAT3

SAT4

SAT5

SAT6

SAT7

SAT 1.0

0.91*

E20*0.42

0.93*

E21*0.38

0.85*

E22*0.53

0.81* E23*0.58

0.94*

E24*0.330.93*

E25*0.36

0.91*

0.41

0.91*

0.42

0.93*

0.38

0.85*

0.53

0.81* 0.58

0.94*

0.330.93*

0.36

0.91*

0.41

100

Table 4. 37 Measurement Model for Satisfaction

Factor Item

code Mean SD

Loading

(λ)

Cronbach's

Alpha (α)

CR


Satisfaction (SAT)

SAT1 5.42 1.72 0.91

0.97 0.97 0.807

χ2 = 113.60, df = 14, p <0.001, CFI = 0.96, SRMR=0.029, RMSEA=0.12, CI = 0.101, 0.142, N=486

SAT2 5.47 1.67 0.93

SAT3 4.92 1.84 0.85

SAT4 4.75 1.75 0.81

SAT5 5.35 1.74 0.94

SAT6 5.50 1.69 0.93

SAT7 5.39 1.70 0.91

4.3.3 Measurement Model for Festival Social Impact Attitude


function with LaGrange Multiplier (LM) Test set-on, was performed on the 25 items

Festival Social Impact Attitude Scale (FSIAS) which was developed by Delamere (2001).

Delamere reported a high reliability (0.95) for the total 25 item FSIAS scale. The scale

consisted of 3 three factors: community benefits (eight items); individual benefits (eight

items); social costs (nine items) (Table 4.38). Items were rated on a seven-point Likert-

type scale, where 1 “strongly disagree” and 7 “strongly agree”.

Initially first-order CFAs were done to confirm the first-order latent variables (the

dimensions under the exogenous latent variable which are community benefits, individual

benefits and social costs). Then a second-order CFA was done to confirm if the Festival

Social Impact Attitude is explained by those three latent variables.

101

Table 4. 38 Festival Social Impact Attitude Scale (FSIAS) Items

Dimension Code Item

Community

benefits

SOCICOM1 Festival enhances image of the community

SOCICOM2 My community gains positive recognition as result of festival

SOCICOM3 Community identity is enhanced through festival

SOCICOM4 Festival is a celebration of my community

SOCICOM5 Festival leaves ongoing positive cultural impact in community

SOCICOM6 Festival helps me show others why my community is unique and special

SOCICOM7 Festival contributes to sense of community well-being

SOCICOM8 Festival helps improve quality of life in community

Individual

benefits

SOCIIND1 Festival provides opportunities for community residents to experience new activities

SOCIIND2 Residents participating in festival have opportunity to learn new things

SOCIIND3 I enjoy meeting festival performers/workers

SOCIIND4 I feel a personal sense of pride and recognition by participating in festival

SOCIIND5 Festival provides community with opportunity to discover/develop new cultural skills/talents

SOCIIND6 I am exposed to variety of cultural experiences through festival

SOCIIND7 Festival acts as a showcase for new ideas

SOCIIND8 Festival contributes to my personal health/well-being

Social Cost

SOCISC1 Festival leads to disruption in normal routines of community residents

SOCISC2 My community is overcrowded during festival

SOCISC3 Car/bus/truck/RV traffic is increased to unacceptable levels during festival

SOCISC4 Community recreational facilities are overused during festival

SOCISC5 Litter is increased to unacceptable levels during festival

SOCISC6 Festival is intrusion into lives of community residents

SOCISC7 Festival overtaxes available community human resources

SOCISC8 Influx of festival visitors reduces privacy we have within our community

SOCISC9 Noise levels are increased to an unacceptable level during festival

4.3.3.1 First Order CFA for Community Benefits

A first-order CFA was conducted to confirm the first factor, community benefits.

To identify sources of misfit, the covariances between V and F variables (GVF) and

covariance between errors (PEE) functions were specified (Byrne, 2006). The analysis of

the goodness of fit statistics of the initial CFA seen in Table 4.39 is very good (S-B

χ2=65.80; df=20; CFI = 0.974; SRMR=0.024; RMSEA = 0.069). The CFA model for

Community benefits was shown in Figure 4.6.

102

Table 4. 39 Goodness of Fit Summary for the Measurement Model for Community

Benefits

Parameters


Chi-Square 65.7984










Figure 4. 6 CFA Model for Community Benefits

4.3.3.2 First Order CFA for Individual Benefits

A first-order CFA was conducted to confirm the second factor of Festival Social

Impact Attitude, individual benefits. The literature suggests that an RMSEA value less than

0.08 with the upper limit of 0.10 represents a reasonable model (MacCallum, Browne &

E34*

SOCICOM1

SOCICOM2

SOCICOM3

SOCICOM4

SOCICOM5

SOCICOM6

SOCICOM7

SOCICOM8

COM 1.0

0.94*

E27*0.34

0.93*

E28*0.37

0.96*

E29*0.29

0.90*E30*0.44

0.92*E31*0.40

0.90*

E32*0.430.88*

E33*0.47

0.80*

0.61

0.94*

0.34

0.93*

0.37

0.96*

0.29

0.90*0.44

0.92*0.40

0.90*

0.430.88*

0.47

0.80*

0.61

103

Sugawara, 1996), and NNFI and CFI values greater than 0.95 indicate a good fit (Hu &

Bentler 1998). Therefore, the CFA results for the individual benefits demonstrates a good

fit (S-B χ2=93.89; df=20; CFI = 0.969; SRMR= 0.036; RMSEA = 0.087) (Table 4.40).

Figure 4. 7 CFA Model for Individual Benefits

Table 4. 40 Goodness of Fit Summary for the Measurement Model for Individual benefits

Parameters


Chi-Square 93.8889










E42*

SOCIIND1

SOCIIND2

SOCIIND3

SOCIIND4

SOCIIND5

SOCIIND6

SOCIIND7

SOCIIND8

IND1.0

0.84*

E35*0.54

0.86*

E36*0.51

0.83*

E37*0.56

0.77*

E38*0.64

0.89*E39*0.46

0.87*

E40*0.500.86*

E41*0.51

0.81*

0.59

0.84*

0.54

0.86*

0.51

0.83*

0.56

0.77*

0.64

0.89*0.46

0.87*

0.500.86*

0.51

0.81*

0.59

104

4.3.3.3 First Order CFA for Social Cost

A first-order CFA was conducted to confirm the last factor of Festival Social Impact

Attitude, which is social cost. The initial analysis of the goodness of fit statistics indicated

a very poor fit (S-B χ2=451.40; df=27; CFI = 0.696; SRMR= 0.160; RMSEA = 0.180).

The CFA output showed that 4 items have very low loadings: SOCISC1 “Festival leads to

disruption in normal routines of community residents” (loading: -0.166), SOCISC2 “My

community is overcrowded during festival” (loading: -0.002), SOCISC3

“Car/bus/truck/RV traffic is increased to unacceptable levels during festival” (loading:

0.154), SOCISC4 “Community recreational facilities are overused during festival”

(loading: 0.236). Instead of dropping too many items, EFA was run to check if there are

more than one factor in social cost. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) can be used to

identify problematic measurement items and misfitting parameters (Netemeyer, Bearden

& Sharma, 2003).

There are different techniques to determine the suitability of data for factor analysis

including examining the correlation matrix, Bartlett’s test of sphericity, and the Kaiser-

Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (Nunnally & Berstein, 1994; Pallant, 2001).

The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) is a sophisticated index which helps to measure which

variables belong together and are appropriate for factorability (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).

As it is shown in table 4.42, the KMO result for social cost is 0.767 which shows that the

data can be considered appropriate for factor analysis as it is greater than 0.6 (Pallant,

2001). EFA revealed that there are two factors (Table 4.41). Looking at the Total Variance

Explained (Table 4.43), the reader can see that 1st factor contributed about 32.92 % and the

105

2nd factor contributed about 19.14 % of the total variance. In total, the two factors explained

approximately 52% of variance in the construct. One item, SOCISC4 “Community

recreational facilities are overused during festival” had to be removed because of cross

loading onto multiple factors (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007) (Table 4.45). The second factor

was named as overcrowding (CROWD) since the items are about the increased number of

people due to the festival (SOCISC1 “Festival leads to disruption in normal routines of

community residents”, SOCISC2 “My community is overcrowded during festival”,

SOCISC3 “Car/bus/truck/RV traffic is increased to unacceptable levels during festival”).

The first factor was named as social cost which was the name of the overall scale.

Table 4. 41 Factor Correlation Matrix for Social Cost Factor 1 2

1 1.000 0.058

2 0.058 1.000

Table 4. 42 KMO and Bartlett's Test for Social Cost Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy 0.767

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 1664.462

df 36

Sig. 0.000

Table 4. 43 Total Variance Explained for Social Cost

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of

Squared Loadings

Factor Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of

Variance Cumulative % Total

1 3.38 37.58 37.58 2.96 32.92 32.92 2.96

2 2.17 24.10 61.69 1.72 19.14 52.06 1.75

3 0.90 9.96 71.65

4 0.65 7.26 78.91

5 0.62 6.85 85.76

6 0.43 4.76 90.52

7 0.33 3.67 94.19

8 0.30 3.37 97.56

9 0.22 2.44 100.00

106

Table 4. 44 Goodness-of-fit Test for Social Cost

Table 4. 45 Factor Matrix for Social Cost

Following the determination of the two factors, a first-order CFA was conducted to

check the reliability and validity assessments of the factors. Since the CROWD factor is

just identified, combined model was utilized in order to get loading estimates. The initial

analysis of the goodness of fit statistics indicated a poor fit (S-B χ2=134.00; df=19; CFI =

0.908; SRMR=0.092; RMSEA = 0.112). To improve the model fit, LM test suggested some

error covariances between the following items (SOCISC5-SOCISC8, SOCISC6-

SOCISC8). Adding the mentioned covariances improved the model fit as seen in Table

4.46 (S-B χ2=93.72; df:17; CFI = 0.940; SRMR=0.089; RMSEA = 0.093). Final CFA

Model for social cost was shown in Figure 4.8.

Chi-Square df Sig.

139.719 19 0.000

Factor 1 Factor 2

SOCISC1 -0.159 0.541

SOCISC2 0.030 0.857

SOCISC3 0.186 0.705

SOCISC4 0.264 0.348

SOCISC5 0.540 0.205

SOCISC6 0.738 0.081

SOCISC7 0.885 -0.063

SOCISC8 0.799 -0.154

SOCISC9 0.758 -0.022

107

Table 4. 46 Goodness of Fit Summary for the Measurement Model for Combined Social

Cost and Overcrowding

Figure 4. 8 First-Order CFA Model for Combined Social Cost and Overcrowding

SOCISC5SOCISC5

SOCISC6

SOCISC7

SOCISC8

SOCISC9

SC 1.0

0.55*

E47*0.83

0.80*

E48*0.61

0.85* E49*0.53

0.86*

E50*0.500.75*

E51*0.66

SOCISC1

SOCISC2

SOCISC3

CROWD 1.0

0.51*

E43*0.86

0.97* E44*0.24

0.63*

E45*0.78

0.00*

-0.52*

-0.24*

0.55*

0.83

0.80*

0.61

0.85* 0.53

0.86*

0.500.75*

0.66

0.51*

0.86

0.97* 0.24

0.63*

0.78

0.00*

-0.52*

-0.24*



Chi-Square 134.0006 93.7229


P value for the Chi-Square p<0.001 p<0.001








108

4.3.3.4 Second Order CFA Festival Social Impact Attitude

A second order of CFA was run following the first-order CFAs for Festival Social

Impact Attitude. In the second-order CFA, the second order latent variable, Festival Social

Impact Attitude (SOCI) was added to the model. Initial second order CFA was run with

the second-order latent variable and the four dimensions (community benefits, individual

benefits, social cost and overcrowding) which are the first order latent variables. The

analysis showed that the social cost factor (SC) has a very low second order loading (-0.20)

(Figure 4.9). Therefore, another second order CFA was run excluding social cost (SC)

dimension from the model. The new model indicated a good fit (S-B χ2=433.90; df=147;

CFI = 0.942; SRMR=0.056; RMSEA = 0.063). The final second order CFA model was

shown in figure 4.10.

A construct exhibits good convergent validity when the Average Variance

Extracted (AVE) by that construct is greater than 0.5. As indicated in Table 4.47, the AVE

for all factors are above 0.5, meaning good convergent validity. Discriminant validity

indicates the relationship between a particular latent construct and others of a similar nature

(Byrne, 2006). The discriminant validity of the scales is established when the square root

of the AVE of each factor is greater than the correlations between pairs of factors (Fornell

& Larcker, 1981). As indicated in Table 4.48, the values of the AVE exceeded correlations

except for factors reflecting 2nd order factors, signifying good discriminant validity of the

model.

109

Figure 4. 9 Initial Second Order CFA Model for Festival Social Impact Attitude

SC

E51*

SOCICOM1

SOCICOM2

SOCICOM3

SOCICOM4

SOCICOM5

SOCICOM6

SOCICOM7

SOCICOM8

COM

0.94*

E27*0.35

0.93*

E28*0.38

0.95

E29*0.30

0.90*E30*0.44

0.92*E31*0.40

0.90*

E32*0.430.89*

E33*0.45

0.81*

E34*0.59

SOCIIND1

SOCIIND2

SOCIIND3

SOCIIND4

SOCIIND5

SOCIIND6

SOCIIND7

SOCIIND8

IND

0.83*

E35*0.55

0.85*

E36*0.53

0.83*

E37*0.56

0.77*E38*0.64

0.89E39*0.46

0.87*

E40*0.500.87*

E41*0.50

0.81*

E42*0.58

SOCISC1

SOCISC2

SOCISC3

CROWD

0.99*

E43*0.13

0.50 E44*0.87

0.32*

E45*0.95

SOCISC5

SOCISC6

SOCISC7

SOCISC8

SOCISC9

SC

0.55*

E47*0.84

0.80*

E48*0.60

0.85* E49*0.53

0.86

E50*0.50

0.75*

0.66

SOCI 1.0

0.92*

D1*

0.39

0.90*

D2*

0.44

0.68*

D3*

0.73-0.20*

D4*

0.98

-0.21*

-0.53*

0.55*

0.47*

0.94*

0.35

0.93*

0.38

0.95

0.30

0.90*0.44

0.92*0.40

0.90*

0.430.89*

0.45

0.81*

0.59

0.83*

0.55

0.85*

0.53

0.83*

0.56

0.77*0.64

0.890.46

0.87*

0.500.87*

0.50

0.81*

0.58

0.99*

0.13

0.50 0.87

0.32*

0.95

0.55*

0.84

0.80*

0.60

0.85* 0.53

0.86

0.50

0.75*

0.66

0.92*

0.39

0.90*

0.44

0.68*

0.73-0.20*

0.98

-0.21*

-0.53*

0.55*

0.47*

110

Figure 4. 10 Final Second Order CFA Model for Festival Social Impact Attitude

SOCICOM1SOCICOM1

SOCICOM2

SOCICOM3

SOCICOM4

SOCICOM5

SOCICOM6

SOCICOM7

SOCICOM8

COM

0.94*

E27*0.35

0.93*

E28*0.38

0.95

E29*0.30

0.90*E30*0.44

0.92*E31*0.40

0.90*

E32*0.430.89*

E33*0.45

0.81*

E34*0.59

SOCIIND1

SOCIIND2

SOCIIND3

SOCIIND4

SOCIIND5

SOCIIND6

SOCIIND7

SOCIIND8

IND

0.83*

E35*0.55

0.85*

E36*0.53

0.83*

E37*0.56

0.77*E38*0.64

0.89E39*0.46

0.87*

E40*0.500.87*

E41*0.50

0.81*

E42*0.58

SOCISC1

SOCISC2

SOCISC3

CROWD

0.99*

E43*0.15

0.50 E44*0.87

0.32*

E45*0.95

SOCI 1.0

0.92*

D1*

0.40

0.90*

D2*

0.43

0.68*

D3*

0.73

0.55*

0.47*

0.94*

0.35

0.93*

0.38

0.95

0.30

0.90*0.44

0.92*0.40

0.90*

0.430.89*

0.45

0.81*

0.59

0.83*

0.55

0.85*

0.53

0.83*

0.56

0.77*0.64

0.890.46

0.87*

0.500.87*

0.50

0.81*

0.58

0.99*

0.15

0.50 0.87

0.32*

0.95

0.92*

0.40

0.90*

0.43

0.68*

0.73

0.55*

0.47*

111

Table 4. 47 Measurement Model for Festival Social Impact Attitude

Item code Mean SD

1st

order

Loadin

g (λ)

Cronbach's

Alpha (α)

CR


2nd

order

loading

(λ)

Community

benefits

SOCICOM1 5.96 1.48 0.94

0.97 0.97 0.819

χ2 = 65.80,

df =20, p<0.000,

CFI = 0.97,

SRMR=0.024 RMSEA=0.027,

CI = 0.051,

0.087, N=486

0.92

SOCICOM2 6.03 1.39 0.93

SOCICOM3 6.05 1.35 0.96

SOCICOM4 5.99 1.38 0.90

SOCICOM5 5.95 1.37 0.92

SOCICOM6 5.97 1.35 0.90

SOCICOM7 5.85 1.40 0.88

SOCICOM8 5.61 1.52 0.80

Individual

benefits

SOCIIND1 5.77 1.45 0.84

0.95 0.95 0.709

χ2 = 93.89,

df =20, p<0.000,

CFI = 0.97,

SRMR=0.036 RMSEA=0.09,

CI = 0.070,

0.105, N=486

0.90

SOCIIND2 5.61 1.49 0.86

SOCIIND3 5.56 1.48 0.83

SOCIIND4 5.20 1.69 0.77

SOCIIND5 5.56 1.50 0.89

SOCIIND6 5.39 1.58 0.87

SOCIIND7 5.49 1.54 0.86

SOCIIND8 5.46 1.52 0.81

Overcrowding

SOCISC1 6.11 1.20 0.51

0.75 0.76

Fit indices are

meaningless, the model is

just identified

SOCISC2 6.35 1.05 0.97 0.533

0.68

SOCISC3 6.23 1.27 0.63

χ2 = 433.90, df =147, p<0.001, CFI = 0.94, RMSEA=0.06, CI = 0.056, 0.070, N=486

Table 4. 48 Factor Correlations for Festival Social Impact Attitude Construct

COM IND CROWD

COM 0.91

IND 0.83 0.84

CROWD 0.62 0.61 0.82



4.3.4 Measurement Model for Social Well-being

In this study, social well-being was assessed using a 5-item scale from Packer and

Ballantyne (2011) which is originally adapted from Keyes's (1998) social wellbeing scale

(SWBS). The scale measures the five components of social wellbeing: social acceptance,

social actualization, social coherence, social contribution, and social integration (one item

each): social coherence (“I am more able to make sense of what is happening”), social

112

integration (“I feel I have more things in common with others”), social acceptance (“I feel

more positive about other people”), social contribution (“I feel I now have more to

contribute to the world”), social actualization (“I feel more hopeful about the way things

are in the world”).

The scale originally includes 33 questions, but shorter versions of the scales were

used in several studies (Ballantyne et al., 2014; de Jager, Coetzee, & Visser, 2008; Keyes,

2006; Packer & Ballantyne, 2011). For the full item scale, Keyes, (1998) reported the

Cronbach alpha reliability as 0.84, and Keyes (2005) found it as 0.81. Keyes (2006) used

shorter version (5 items) of the scale, he reported the alpha reliability of the five items of

social well-being as .80.


function with LaGrange Multiplier (LM) Test set-on, was performed on the 5 item Social

Well-being Scale (Table 4.49) to validate the factorial structure of the construct. Items were

rated on a seven-point Likert-type scale, where 1 “strongly disagree” and 7 “strongly

agree”. The CFA results indicates a very good fit (S-B χ2=17.64; df:5; CFI = 0.991;

SRMR=0.021; RMSEA = 0.072) (Table 4.50).

The model is reliable, both composite reliability and Cronbach’s α values are 0.93

(Table 4.51). The model is also valid as shown by AVE value of 0.726 (Table 4.50). The

final CFA model for Social Well-being was shown in Figure 4.11.

113

Table 4. 49 Social Well-being Items

Factor Code Item

Social well-being (SWB)

SWB1 I am more able to make sense of what is happening in the world

SWB2 I feel I have more things in common with others

SWB3 I feel more positive about other people

SWB4 I feel I now have more to contribute to the world

SWB5 I feel more hopeful about the way things are in the world

Figure 4. 11 CFA model for Social Well-being

Table 4. 50 Goodness of Fit Summary for the Measurement Model for Social Well-being

Parameters


Chi-Square 17.6427

Degree of Freedom 5









E56*

SWB1

SWB2

SWB3

SWB4

SWB5

SWB 1.0

0.80*

E52*0.59

0.87*

E53*0.49

0.88* E54*0.47

0.86*

E55*0.510.85*

0.52

0.80*

0.59

0.87*

0.49

0.88* 0.47

0.86*

0.510.85*

0.52

114

Table 4. 51 Measurement Model for Social Well-being

Factor Item

code M SD

Loading

(λ)

Cronbach's

Alpha (α)

CR


Social

Well-Being

(SWB)

SWB1 4.53 1.71 0.80 0.93 0.93 0.726 χ2 = 17.64, df =5, p=0.003,

CFI = 0.99, SRMR=0.021,

RMSEA=0.07,

CI = 0.038, 0.110, N=486

SWB2 4.81 1.68 0.87

SWB3 4.98 1.66 0.88

SWB4 4.79 1.65 0.86

SWB5 4.79 1.73 0.85

4.3.5 Measurement Model for Positive Affect and Negative Affect

The Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS) scale was used to measure

positive and negative emotions, items were rated on a seven-point Likert-type scale, where

1 “strongly disagree” and 7 “strongly agree”. The scale is developed by Watson, Clark and

Tellegen (1988), it is a 20-item scale (10 items for positive effects and 10 items for negative

effects) describing various moods (Table 4.52). Their study reported high alpha reliabilities

ranging from .86 to .90 for PA and from .84 to .87 for NA. The studies that used the Turkish

version of the scale, has also reported high reliabilities. Dogan and Totan (2013) reported

the reliability coefficients for the PA as .86 and for the NA .80. Gençöz (2000) has also

found relatively high reliabilities, .83 for PA and .86 for NA.

Initially first-order CFAs were run for Positive Affect and Negative Affect

dimensions, afterwards a second order of CFA was run since the scale is multidimensional.

115

Table 4. 52 Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS) Items

Dimension Item code Items

Positive Affect

PA1 Interested

PA2 Excited

PA3 Strong

PA4 Enthusiastic

PA5 Proud

PA6 Alert

PA7 Inspired

PA8 Determined

PA9 Attentive

PA10 Active

Negative Affect

NA1 Distressed

NA2 Upset

NA3 Guilty

NA4 Scared

NA5 Hostile

NA6 Irritable

NA7 Ashamed

NA8 Nervous

NA9 Jittery

NA10 Afraid

4.3.5.1 First Order CFA for Positive Affect


very poor (S-B χ2=191.88; df=35; CFI = 0.895; SRMR=0.065; RMSEA = 0.096). The

output of the analysis shows that PA6 “alert” (loading:0.32) had a very low loading. The

reason for that might be the translation, “alert” has been translated into Turkish as “uyanik”

by previous studies using Panas scale. “Uyanik” as a Turkish word has both positive and

negative meanings, therefore it might have caused a confusion among survey participants.

Since the item did not contribute to the latent construct of positive affect the item was

dropped, and the model was re-run under the same conditions. The CFA results for the new

116

model indicated a poor fit (S-B χ2=147.07; df=27; CFI = 0.913; SRMR=0.060; RMSEA =

0.096). LM test showed that model fit can be improved by adding some error covariances

between the following items PA8 “determined” and PA9 “attentive”. The suggested error

covariance was added into the model, and the final model seem to be improved a lot (S-B

χ2=92.03; df=26; CFI = 0.952; SRMR=0.044; RMSEA = 0.072).

Table 4. 53 Goodness of Fit Summary for the Measurement Model for Positive Affect



Chi-Square 191.8771 92.0323










Figure 4. 12 CFA Model for Positive Affect

PA1

E75*

PA1

PA2

PA3

PA4

PA5

PA7

PA8

PA9

PA10

PA 1.0

0.68*

E57*0.74

0.73*

E59*0.68

0.67*

E61*0.74

0.75*

E65*0.66

0.70* E66*0.72

0.62*

E70*0.790.53*

E72*0.85

0.59*

E73*0.81

0.68*

0.73

0.68*

0.74

0.73*

0.68

0.67*

0.74

0.75*

0.66

0.70* 0.72

0.62*

0.790.53*

0.85

0.59*

0.81

0.68*

0.73

117

4.3.5.2 First Order CFA for Negative Affect


very poor (S-B χ2=192.5170; df=35; CFI = 0.875; SRMR=0.064; RMSEA = 0.096). LM

test suggested error covariances between the following items (NA1-NA2 and NA3-NA4).

Adding the covariances between the items has improved the model (S-B χ2=111.0738;

df=33; CFI = 0.939; SRMR= 0.051; RMSEA = 0.070).

Table 4. 54 Goodness of Fit Summary for the Measurement Model for Negative Affect



Chi-Square 192.5170 111.0738










118

Figure 4. 13 CFA Model for Negative Affect

4.3.5.3 Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS) Second Order

A second order of CFA was run following the first-order CFAs for Positive and

Negative Affect Scale (PANAS). The initial model indicated an acceptable fit (S-B

χ2=441.91; df=148; CFI = 0.912; SRMR=0.069; RMSEA = 0.064), however LM test

suggestions was followed to achieve a better fit. LM test indicated that two variables seem

to be problematic (PA8 “determined” and NA7 “ashamed”). Therefore, these two items

were dropped. Deleting the two items helped to improve the model fit (S-B χ2=327.98;

df=116; CFI = 0.928; SRMR=0.057; RMSEA = 0.061) (Table 4.55). The final CFA model

for second order Positive Affect (PA) and Negative Affect (NA) was shown in Figure 4.14.

A construct exhibits good convergent validity when the Average Variance

Extracted (AVE) by that construct is greater than 0.5. As indicated in Table 4.57 AVE for

NA 1.0

E76*

NA1

NA2

NA3

NA4

NA5

NA6

NA7

NA8

NA9

NA10

NA 1.0

0.65*

E58*0.76

0.71*

E60*0.71

0.65*

E62*0.76

0.73*

E63*0.68

0.72*

E64*0.70

0.73*E67*0.69

0.58*

E69*0.820.76*

E71*0.65

0.74*

E74*0.67

0.75*

0.66

0.52*

0.38*

0.65*

0.76

0.71*

0.71

0.65*

0.76

0.73*

0.68

0.72*

0.70

0.73*0.69

0.58*

0.820.76*

0.65

0.74*

0.67

0.75*

0.66

0.52*

0.38*

119

negative affect is reported as 0.513, however AVE for positive affect is slightly less than

0.5 (0.461). Discriminant validity indicates the relationship between a particular latent

construct and others of a similar nature (Byrne, 2006). The discriminant validity of the

scales is established when the square root of the AVE of each factor is greater than the

correlations between pairs of factors (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). As indicated in Table 4.57,

the square root of the AVE is greater than the correlation between PA and NA, signifying

good discriminant validity of the model.

Table 4. 55 Goodness of Fit Summary for the Measurement Model for the Second Order

Positive and Negative Affect



Chi-Square 441.9142 327.9799










120

Figure 4. 14 Second Order CFA Model for Positive and Negative Affect

NA1

E76*

PA1

PA2

PA3

PA4

PA5

PA7

PA9

PA10

PA

0.70*

E57*0.72

0.76*

E59*0.65

0.65*

E61*0.76

0.77

E65*0.64

0.69* E66*0.72

0.60*

E70*0.800.54*

E73*0.84

0.67*

E75*0.74

NA1

NA2

NA3

NA4

NA5

NA6

NA8

NA9

NA10

NA

0.67*

E58*0.74

0.73*

E60*0.68

0.63*

E62*0.78

0.73

E63*0.68

0.71*E64*0.70

0.73*E67*0.69

0.77*

E71*0.640.73*

E74*0.68

0.74*

0.67

0.34*

0.54*

PANAS 1.0

0.85*

D1*

0.53

-0.61*

D2*

0.79

0.70*

0.72

0.76*

0.65

0.65*

0.76

0.77

0.64

0.69* 0.72

0.60*

0.800.54*

0.84

0.67*

0.74

0.67*

0.74

0.73*

0.68

0.63*

0.78

0.73

0.68

0.71*0.70

0.73*0.69

0.77*

0.640.73*

0.68

0.74*

0.67

0.34*

0.54*

0.85*

0.53

-0.61*

0.79

121

Table 4. 56 Measurement Model for Positive and Negative Affect

Dimensio

n

Item

code M SD

1st

order

loading

(λ)

Cronbach's

Alpha (α)

CR


2nd

order

loading

(λ)

Positive

Affect

PA1 5.08 1.65 0.68 0.87 0.87 0.461 χ2 = 92.03,

df =26, p<0.001,

CFI = 0.95,

SRMR=0.044;

RMSEA=0.07,

CI = 0.056, 0.088,

N=486

0.85

PA2 4.91 1.79 0.73

PA3 4.85 1.71 0.67

PA4 5.02 1.77 0.75

PA5 4.79 1.90 0.70

PA7 4.34 1.89 0.62

PA9 5.05 1.66 0.59

PA10 5.37 1.60 0.68

Negative

Affect

NA1 2.36 1.58 0.65 0.90 0.90 0.513 χ2 = 111.07,

df =33, p<0.001,

CFI = 0.94,

SRMR=0.051;

RMSEA=0.07,

CI = 0.056, 0.084,

N=486

-0.61

NA2 2.17 1.59 0.71

NA3 1.50 1.03 0.65

NA4 1.65 1.25 0.73

NA5 1.63 1.34 0.72

NA6 2.04 1.58 0.73

NA8 2.16 1.70 0.76

NA9 2.24 1.68 0.74

NA10 1.66 1.29 0.75

Fit indices for the second order model: S-B χ2=327.98; df:116; CFI = 0.928; SRMR=0.057; RMSEA=0.061

Table 4. 57 Factor Correlations for Positive and Negative Affect

PA NA

PA 0.68

NA -0.52 0.72



4.3.6 Measurement Model for Life Satisfaction

Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) was used to measure life satisfaction of

participants. Participants asked to rate their level of agreement with five statements on a

seven-point response scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree (Diener et al., 1985).

The SWLS has shown strong internal reliability, Diener et al. (1985) reported a coefficient

alpha of .87 for the scale. The Turkish adaptation of the scale has also showed high

reliabilities. For instance, Dogan and Totan (2013) reported the test-retest reliability of the

122

SWLS as .90. Similarly, Yetim (1993) found the test-retest reliability of the scale as .85

and its internal consistency as .76.

A Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) procedure was performed on the 5 item Life

Satisfaction Scale (Table 4.57). The CFA results indicates a very good fit (S-B χ2=14.708;

df=5; CFI = 0.993; SRMR=0.021; RMSEA = 0.063) (Table 4.59).

The model is reliable, both composite reliability and Cronbach’s α values are 0.91

(Table 34). The model is also valid as shown by AVE value of 0.688 (Table 4.60). The

final CFA model for Life Satisfaction was shown in Figure 4.15.

Table 4. 58 Life Satisfaction Items

Factor Code Item

Life Satisfaction

LSAT1 In most ways my life is close to my ideal.

LSAT2 The conditions of my life are excellent.

LSAT3 I am satisfied with my life.

LSAT4 So far, I have gotten the important things I want in life.

LSAT5 If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing.

Figure 4. 15 CFA Model for Life Satisfaction

E81*

LSAT1

LSAT2

LSAT3

LSAT4

LSAT5

LSAT 1.0

0.85*

E77*0.53

0.88*

E78*0.47

0.88* E79*0.48

0.83*

E80*0.560.69*

0.73

0.85*

0.53

0.88*

0.47

0.88* 0.48

0.83*

0.560.69*

0.73

123

Table 4. 59 Goodness of Fit Summary for the Measurement Model for Life Satisfaction

Parameters


Chi-Square 14.7079

Degree of Freedom 5









Table 4. 60 Measurement Model for Life Satisfaction

Factor Item code Mean SD Loading

(λ)

Cronbach's

Alpha (α)

CR


Life

Satisfaction

LSAT1 4.52 1.54 0.85 0.91 0.91 0.688 χ2 = 14.71, df =5,

p=0.011,

CFI = 0.99,

SRMR=0.021,

RMSEA=0.06,

CI = 0.027, 0.102,

N=486

LSAT2 4.20 1.46 0.88

LSAT3 4.38 1.55 0.88

LSAT4 4.26 1.60 0.83

LSAT5 3.50 1.83 0.69

4.3.7 Measurement Model for Revisit Intention and Word-of Mouth

Revisit intention and Word of Mouth (WOM) scales were adapted from Kim, Lee

and Lee (2017). Kim et al. (2017) reported the Cronbach alpha of .89 for the revisit

intention scale and 0.87 for the WOM scale.

Since both scales are under identified, combined model was utilized in order to get

loading estimates. The measurement model indicates a good fit (S-B χ2=0.1248; df=5; CFI

=1.000; SRMR=0.001, RMSEA = 0.000). Both scales have high reliabilities (Rho and

Cronbach’s alpha is reported as 0.95 for Revisit Intention and 0.96 for Word of Mouth)

(Table 4.62). As also indicated in Table 4.62, the AVEs for both factors (0.903 for Revisit

124

Intention and 0.923 for Word of Mouth) are above 0.5, meaning good convergent validity.

The final combined CFA Model for Intention and Word of Mouth was shown in Figure

4.16.

Table 4. 61 Revisit Intention and Word-of Mouth Items

Factor Item code Items

Revisit Intention INT1 I will come back to this Carnival in the future

INT2 I will make efforts to revisit again

Word of Mouth WOM1 I will recommend this Carnival to people I know.

WOM2 I will say positive things about this Carnival to other people.

Table 4. 62 Goodness of Fit Summary for the Combined Measurement Model for Revisit

Intention and Word of Mouth Parameters


Chi-Square 0.1248

Degree of Freedom 1


FIT INDICES (Robust) BENTLER-BONETT NORMED FIT INDEX 1.000






Figure 4. 16 Combined CFA Model for Intention and Word of Mouth

E85*

INT1

INT2

INT 1.0

0.94*E82*0.34

0.96*E83*0.27

WOM1

WOM2

WOM 1.0

0.99*

E84*0.13

0.93*0.36

0.96*

0.94*0.34

0.96*0.27

0.99*

0.13

0.93*0.36

0.96*

125

Table 4. 63 Combined Measurement Model for Revisit Intention and Word of Mouth

Factor Item

code Mean SD

Loading

(λ)

Cronbach's

Alpha (α)

CR


Revisit

Intention

INT1 5.53 1.75 0.94

0.95 0.95 0.903

Fit indices are

meaningless,

the model is

under identified INT2 5.56 1.72 0.96

Word of

Mouth

WOM1 5.68 1.68 0.99

Fit indices are

meaningless,

the model is

under identified WOM2 5.75 1.62 0.93

0.96 0.96 0.923

χ2 = 0.12, df =1 p=0.72, CFI =1.00, RMSEA=0.000, SRMR=0.001, CI = 0.000, 0.086, N=486

4.4 Conceptual Structural Model

A CFA was run with all variables and constructs using EQS 6.3 software under ML

and ROBUST methods with LM test set on for Variance/Covariance Matrix (PFF, PDD,

PFV and PVV), independent→ dependent variable (GVF, GFF, and GFV) and dependent

→dependent variable (BFV and BFF). Fit indices of the structural model indicate an

acceptable fit (S-B χ2=5068.62; df=2795; CFI = 0.911; RMSEA = 0.041; SRMR=0.068).

The model also appears to be highly reliable, reliability coefficients Cronbach’s alpha

reported as 0.96 and RHO reported as 0.98.

Table 4. 64 Results of the Full Structural Model Dependent

Variable Independent Variables R-Squared

SWB .511SAT* + .010SC + .000MOT + .253SOCI *+ .653D10 0.574

PA .510SAT* - .073SC* + .000MOT + .247SOCI* + .637D11 0.594

NA -.254SAT* + .106SC* + .000MOT - .255SOCI* + .822D12 0.324

LSAT .164SAT* + .144SC* + .000MOT + .292SOCI* + .910 D13 0.172

INT .111SWB* + .524PA* - .228NA* + .148LSAT* + .574 D14 0.671

WOM .171SWB* + .550PA* - .155NA* + .094LSAT* + .574 D15 0.671

χ2=5068.62; df=2795; CFI = 0.911; RMSEA = 0.041; SRMR=0.068

Key: SWB=Social well-being, SAT=Satisfaction, SC=Social cost, MOT=Motivation, SOCI=Social

impacts, PA=Positive affect, NA=Negative affect, LSAT=Life satisfaction, INT=Intention, WOM=Word of

mouth

*= Statistically significant relationships at p < 0.05.

126

4.4.1 Hypotheses Testing

Based on the results of final structural model, some hypotheses were rejected while

most of the hypotheses failed to be rejected as indicated in table 4.65.

Table 4. 65 Hypotheses Testing No. Hypothesis Statement Relationship(s) Results

H1a There is a significant positive relationship between Festival Satisfaction and Positive Affect

SAT-PA Supported

H1b There is a significant negative relationship between Festival Satisfaction and

Negative Affect SAT-NA Supported

H1c There is a significant positive relationship between Festival Satisfaction and Life

Satisfaction SAT-LSAT Supported

H1d There is a significant positive relationship between Festival Satisfaction and Social Well-being

SAT-SWB Supported

H2a There is a significant positive relationship between Motivation and Positive Affect MOT→PA Not supported

H2b There is a significant negative relationship between Motivation and Negative Affect MOT→NA Not supported

H2c There is a significant positive relationship between Motivation and Life Satisfaction MOT→LSAT Not supported

H2d There is a significant positive relationship between Motivation and Social Well-being

MOT→SWB Not supported

H3a There is a significant positive relationship between Social Impacts and Positive

Affect SOCI→PA Supported

H3b There is a significant negative relationship between Social Impacts and Negative Affect

SOCI→NA Supported

H3c There is a significant positive relationship between Social Impacts and Life

Satisfaction SOCI→LSAT Supported

H3d There is a significant positive relationship between Social Impacts and Social Well-

being SOCI→SWB Supported

H4a There is a significant negative relationship between Social Cost and Positive Affect SC→PA Supported

H4b There is a significant positive relationship between Social Cost and Negative Affect SC→NA Supported

H4c There is a significant negative relationship between Social Cost and Life

Satisfaction SC→LSAT Not supported

H4d There is a significant negative relationship between Social Cost and Social Well-being

SC→SWB Not supported

H5a There is a significant positive relationship between Positive Affect and Intention PA→INT Supported

H5b There is a significant positive relationship between Positive Affect and Word of

Mouth PA→WOM Supported

H6a There is a significant negative relationship between Negative Affect and Revisit Intention

NA→INT Supported

H6b There is a significant negative relationship between Negative Affect and Word of Mouth

NA→WOM Supported

H7a There is a significant positive relationship between Life Satisfaction and Revisit

Intention LSAT→INT Supported

H7b There is a significant positive relationship between Life Satisfaction and Word of

Mouth LSAT→WOM Supported

H8a There is a significant positive relationship between Social Well-being and Revisit

Intention SWB→INT Supported

H8b There is a significant positive relationship between Social Well-being and Word of

Mouth SWB→WOM Supported

127

Figure 4.17 shows all hypothesized relationships. Solid arrowed lines indicate

significant relationships while dotted arrowed lines show insignificant relationships. Figure

4.18 shows only significant relationships. The observations show that there are both

positive and negative relationships. For instance, while negative affect has negative

relationships with both revisit intention and word of mouth, positive affect has positive

relationships.

Figure 4. 17 Structural Model Showing Significant and Insignificant Relationships

Figure 4. 18 Structural Model Showing Only Significant Relationships

128

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

This final chapter contains a discussion of the findings with the key conclusions by

comparing the findings to the existing literature. Following this discussion, the practical

implications, limitations of the study, recommendations for future research were also

presented.

5.1 Discussion of the Findings and Conclusions

The result of the current study indicated that satisfaction has significant

relationships with all wellbeing variables. The more people are satisfied with the festival,

the more positive emotions (H1a), the less negative emotions (H1b), and the higher life

satisfaction they have (H1c). The result is consistent with previous research. A number of

studies have argued that leisure satisfaction is linked to psychological wellbeing (Ateca-

Amestoy et al., 2008; Ito et al., 2017; Nawijn & Veenhoven, 2013). Some research has

argued that tourism satisfaction can contribute to tourists' psychological well-being (Neal,

Sirgy, & Uysal, 1999; Sirgy, 2010; Chen, Huang & Petrick, 2016). Neal et al. (1999)

posited that positive holiday experiences effects how people evaluate life domains (e.g.

work, leisure, family) and enhance their overall life satisfaction. Chen et al. (2016)

supported the mediating effect of tourism satisfaction between tourism recovery experience

and overall life satisfaction. Su, Swanson and Chen (2016) conducted a study with domestic

Chinese hotel guests and they found a support for modeling customer satisfaction as an

antecedent to subjective well-being. Current research is contributing to the literature by

129

looking at the link between satisfaction and subjective well-being in a festival context

which is missing in the literature.

The study also contributes to the subjective wellbeing literature by including social

wellbeing in the model. In 1948, the World Health Organization acknowledged social

wellbeing as one of the aspects of overall wellbeing. However, the construct was often

referred to as a social indicator which is indicated by economic measures. The concept of

social well-being was proposed by Keyes (1998), whereby he defined social well-being as

“the appraisal of one’s circumstance and functioning in society” (pg.122). In the litearature,

subjective wellbeing is mostly equated with emotional wellbeing which consists of

affective wellbeing and satisfaction of life (Keyes & Shapiro, 2004). According to Keyes

(1998), the recognition of how people evaluate their lives and personal functioning in terms

of their relationship with other people (e.g. neighbors, coworkers, other community

members) was missing in the subjective wellbeing literature. Therefore, the study also

examined social wellbeing along with affective wellbeing and life satisfaction.

Extensive research has been conducted on the impacts of music festivals on social

wellbeing (Ballantyne, Ballantyne, & Packer, 2014; Murray & Lamont, 2012; Laing &

Mair, 2015; Packer & Ballantyne, 2011). The studies argued that attending a music festival

may contribute to the social wellbeing of participants. Although the construct of social

wellbeing has been extensively studied in the festival context, the antecendents and

consequences of social wellbeing was lacking in the literature. Therefore the study

proposed and tested several hypotheses about relationships between other constructs and

social wellbeing. The first hypothesis related to social wellbeing was supported (H1d). The

130

result infers that there is a significant and positive relationship between satisfaction and

social wellbeing of the participants. It can be clearly seen that satisfaction has significant

impacts on all of the wellbeing constructs in the model including positive affect, negative

affect, satisfaction with life and finally social wellbeing.

Kim et al. (2015) argued that even though tourism research has been mostly using

satisfaction and behavioral intentions as outcome constructs, subjective well-being is also

a considerable outcome of tourist motivation. There is a limited number of studies which

examine the direct influence of motivation on subjective well-being in the field of tourism.

No study has yet examined the effects of festival motivations on subjective well-being.

Although some tourism studies found that motivation is an important predictor of

subjective wellbeing (Cini et al., 2013; Kim et al., 2015), current studies found no

significant relationship between motivation and other constructs (positive affect (H2a),

negative affect (H2b), life satisfaction (H2c) and social wellbeing (H2d).

There is very limited research on the relation between perceived impacts of tourism

and subjective well-being. Kim, Uysal and Sirgy (2013) found that positive cultural

impacts of tourism influence emotional wellbeing, which leads to life satisfaction.

Similarly, Lin, Chen and Filieri (2017) found that social-cultural benefits of tourism

development have positive effects on life satisfaction, while perceived costs have negative

effects. In festival context, Yolal et al. (2016) examined the association between perceived

benefits (community benefits and cultural/educational) of a festival and subjective well-

being. The study found that community benefits and cultural/educational benefits are

positively correlated to subjective well-being of residents. Current study contributes to the

131

limited understanding of perceived social impacts of festivals on subjective wellbeing of

participants. The results show that perceived social impacts of the festival is positively

associated with positive affect (H3a) and life satisfaction (H3c) while it is negatively

associated with negative affect (H3b). A significant and positive link between perceived

social impacts and social wellbeing was also supported (H3d). In the current study, based

on the CFA results, perceived social impacts has 3 dimensions: individual benefits,

community benefits and overcrowding. Even though overcrowding was expected to have

a negative correlation coefficient in the second order social impacts CFA model (Table

4.10), it has a significant positive contribution in the model. The reason for that might be

people who are more aware of the benefits of the festival are also more aware of the costs

of the festival.

It is valuable study and understand the negative impacts of festivals as a way to

investigate if the benefits outweigh the costs on the community. Accordingly, there has

been a growing attention on examining perceived negative impacts of tourism. For

instance, a number of studies reported that there is a negative association between the

perception of negative social impacts and the support for tourism development (Gursoy,

Jurowski, & Uysal, 2002; Gursoy et al., 2004; Tosun, 2002). Evidence shows that, as

similar to other types of tourism, festivals and special events have also negative impacts

(e.g. litter, increase in noise levels). In the original scale developed by Delemare et al.

(2001), social cost was one of the dimensions of perceived social impacts. In the current

study, social cost was excluded from the scale and treated as a separate factor because the

CFA analysis showed that the social cost factor (SC) has a very low second order loading

132

(-0.20) (Figure 4.9). The final structural model results show that perceived social costs has

a significant and negative impact on positive affect (H4a), while it has a significant positive

impact on negative affect (H4b). It means that the festival participants who reported higher

social costs have more negative emotions and less positive emotions during the festival.

This result can be one of the reasons why communities or festival organizations should aim

to maximize benefits for both local people and tourists, and to minimize and control any

potential negative impacts. There is very limited research exploring the role of negative

impacts of festivals on participants’subjective well-being (Yolal et al., 2016). The current

study contributes to fill the gap in existing literature.

This study hypothesized that there is a significant negative relationship between

Social Cost and Life Satisfaction (H4c). However it is not supported. The results indicate

that there is a significant but positive relationship between social cost and life satisfaction.

This outcome may be explained by some research focusing on environmental concern and

underlying factors. For instance, Franzen and Meyer (2009), examined environmental

attitudes in cross-national perspective by using the International Social Survey Programme

(ISSP) from the years 1993 and 2000. Their study found that individuals who live in a

relatively high-income household reported higher concern for the environment than

individuals in households with relatively lower income. People with high incomes are more

likely to have better health (Adler et al., 1994; Ecob & Smith, 1999), higher education

(Muller, 2002) and a higher standard of living (Argyle, 1999). Kahneman and Deaton

(2010) argue that income and education is closely related to life evaluation. They also noted

that even though income can’t buy happiness, it buys life satisfaction (pg. 1489). Since life

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4686135/#R20

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4686135/#R3

133

satisfaction can be related to higher incomes, higher education level and higher awareness

about environmental and social issues, for this study festival participants with higher life

satisfaction may be more aware of the social costs of the festival. Overall, although social

cost was found to have significant relationships with the three constructs (positive affect,

negative affect, and life satisfaction), no association was found between social cost and

social well-being (H4d).

Satisfaction is one of the most used constructs to determine revisit intention (Jang

& Feng, 2007; Ahmad Puad & Badarneh, 2011; Assaker, Vinzi, & O’Connor, 2011;

Hultman, Skarmeas, Oghazi, & Beheshti, 2015; Kim, Kim, Goh, & Antun, 2011). Yoon

and Uysal (2005) mentioned that positive experiences of tourists with services and products

that are offered by tourism destinations can facilitate repeat visits and positive WOM.

Morover, perceived service quality and destination’s distinctive nature (Um, Chon, & Ro,

2006), memorable tourism experiences (Zhang, Wu & Buhalis, 2018), place attachment

(Song, Kim & Yim, 2017), motivations (Back, Bufquin & Park, 2018), reputation and

reviews (Back et al., 2018), accessibility quality and accommodation quality (Chin, et al.,

2018), and the weather (Kim et al., 2017) found as the antecendants of revisit intention in

the literature. Wang, Min & Kim (2013) found that spectator wellbeing significantly

mediates the effects of motivation on sport spectator revisit intention and word of mouth

recommendations. Jamaludin et al. (2016) argue that affective wellbeing in the context of

tourism can also be a determinant factor for destination loyalty intention since present

moods could affect individuals’ decisions. Kim et al. (2015) also found that revisit intention

of hiking tourists is affected by subjective well-being. Even though subjective well-being

134

can be an important evaluative element for revisit intention, until now, little research has

focused on studying the relationship between subjective well-being and revisit intention

(Jamaludin et al., 2016; Kim et al., 2015). This study aims to fill this gap. This study found

that positive affect has a positive link to intention (H5a) and word of mouth (H5b), while

negative affect has negative associations with both intention (H6a) and word of mouth

(H6b). The findings suggest that moods during the festival impact the participants’

intention to revisit the festival next year. Similar to affect, life satisfaction has also

significant relationship with both revisit intention (H7a) and word of mouth (H7b). This

finding suggests that individuals who have higher life satisfaction have higher intentions

to revisit the festival.

Since social wellbeing is a relatively new concept which was proposed by Keyes

(1998), there is very limited research on it as discussed from previous hypotheses, and there

is no study yet that has examined the relationship between social wellbeing and revisit

intention and word of mouth. This study found a significant association link from social

wellbeing to both revisit intention (H8a) and word of mouth reccomendations (H8b).

5.2 Practical Implications

The findings of this study suggest several implications for the festival organizers.

First, the case of the 6th International Orange Blossom Carnival shows that 87.4 % of the

visitors are repeat visitors. The results highlight the importance of attracting previous

visitors to the next one for the viability of the festival. Even though there is no perfect

relationship between intention and actual behavior, intention is still considered to be the

best predictor of behavior (Ajzen et al., 1985, 1991; Lam & Hsu, 2004). Tourists’ visit

135

intentions can be seen as an individual’s anticipated future travel behavior. Furthermore,

in this study, the positive significant relationship between subjective well-being of the

festival attendees, and their revisit intention and word of mouth suggests that festival

attendance can be developed through enhancing subjective well-being of the participants.

This could be achieved through improving festival satisfaction and providing more positive

social benefits while reducing the social costs as suggested in the structural model. Finally,

the idea of having a high subjective well-being during the festival can be used as an

advertisement strategy for both local residents and non-local visitors at the festival hosting

community.

5.3 Limitations of the Study

The findings of this study have several limitations. The first considerable limitation

is that the current study examined only three factors (motivations, satisfaction and

perceived social impacts) as antecedents of subjective wellbeing of the festival attendees.

Several other factors such as personal characteristics (Liu, 2014), culture (Tam, Lau, & Jiang,

2012), weather conditions (Connolly, 2013) among other factors can influence individuals’

subjective well-being. It is possible that inclusion of any other factors may alter the magnitude

of the relative significance of the relationships tested in this study.

Another limitation is that the data was collected from attendees of Orange Blossom

Carnival in Adana, Turkey, and it is likely that respondents answered the survey questions

based on their experiences at this festival. Thus, the findings of this study may be specific to

the participants of this festival and may not necessarily be generalizable.

136

Another topic deserving attention is causality. Causal direction in subjective well-

being research has been a fundamental problem (Headey, Veenhoven, & Wearing, 1991).

Even though most of the research is interested in representing the causes subjective to well-

being, the variables described as causes can be just correlates of subjective well-being or

consequences, or perhaps both causes and consequences (Headey et al., 1991). Therefore,

this study avoided using causal words while constructing the hypothesis.

Finally, measures of subjective well-being can be influenced by social desirability

response bias (Diener, 2000). Social desirability refers to the individual’s tendency to

respond to measurement scales in a way that is more socially desirable (Richman,

Weisband, Kiesler, & Drasgow, 1999). People may over report their happiness or

subjective wellbeing (Brajsa-Zganec et al., 2011). Caputo (2017) stated that “it is common

for societies to emphasize that their members act in an agreeable and pleasant manner, even

when an individual is experiencing a negative mood or an adverse situation” (pg. 246).

With the above limitations noted, future research can address these limitations and confirm

or clarify study findings.

5.4 Recommendations for Future Research

Several directions for future study are summarized as follows: First of all,

recognizing the danger of over generalizing beyond the current context, future research

needs to explore the relevance of the present research findings to other festivals which may

be different types of festivals or may be just in different destinations. Second, future

research should further explore other constructs than the ones used in this study (festival

motivation, festival satisfaction, perceived social impacts of festival) to examine the factors

137

that may have a link to subjective well-being of festival attendees (e.g. personal

characteristics). Third, future research can examine the moderating roles of some variables

(e.g. income level, marital status, education level or being volunteer in festival) which was

missing in this study. Fourth, although this study included social well-being construct

which measures social aspects of eudaimonic well-being (Keyes 1998), private aspects of

eudaimonic well-being (psychological well-being) (Ryff,1989) was not taken into account.

Future research can adapt following theoretical models to measure eudaimonic well-being

in a festival context: Psychological well-being (Ryff ,1989), Self Determination Theory

(Ryan & Deci, 2000), PERMA Model (Seligman, 2011), DRAMMA Model (Newman, Tay,

& Diener, 2014), and A Benefits Theory of Leisure Well-Being (Sirgy, Uysal & Kruger, 2017).

Finally, to determine causality, it would be useful to undertake further research of a

longitudinal and experimental nature.

138

APPENDICES

139

APPENDIX A

THE QUESTIONNAIRE

SECTION 1: Please answer the questions based on your experiences at 2018

International Orange Blossom Carnival, Adana, Turkey.

1. Including this year, how many times have you ever been to International Orange

Blossom Carnival?

Times

2. How many times have you been to any festival this year?

Times

3. How many days have you attended the 2018 International Orange Blossom Carnival

including today?

□ One day

□ Two days

□ Three days

□ Four days

□ Five days

4. Do you live in Adana?

□ Yes

□ No

5. How would you describe your travel group today?

□ I am alone

□ Family

□ Friends

□ Organization

□ Other _____________

6. Do you have an active role at the 2018 International Orange Blossom Carnival? (Are

you working at the Carnival?)

□ Yes

□ No

7. If your answer is yes for the previous question please check one of the items below. If

your answer is no please skip to the question 8.

□ I am a volunteer at the Carnival

□ I have a paid job at the Carnival

140

SECTION 2: Festival Motivations

8. This section has questions that ask you about why you participate 2018 International

Orange Blossom Carnival. Please indicate your agreement or disagreement with the

following statements. The scale ranges from 1-7, where 1 = strongly disagree and 7=

strongly agree.

(Please circle one number per statement).

Str

ong

ly

Dis

agre

e

Neu

tral

Str

ong

ly

Ag

ree

To observe the other people attending the Carnival 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

For a chance to be with people who are enjoying

themselves

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

To be with people of similar interest 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

To be with people who enjoy the same things I do 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Because I enjoy the Carnival crowds 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

To experience the Carnival myself 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

So I could be with my friends 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

For a change of pace from my everyday life 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

To have a change from my daily routine 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

To experience new and different things 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Because I was curious 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

To get away from the demands of life 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Because it is stimulating and exciting 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Because I thought the entire family would enjoy it 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

So the family could do something together 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Because I enjoy special events 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Because I like the variety of things to see and do 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Because the Carnival is unique 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

141

SECTION 3: Festival Satisfaction

9. These following questions refer to your overall satisfaction in 2018 International

Orange Blossom Carnival. Please indicate your agreement or disagreement with the

following statements. The scale ranges from 1-7, where 1 = strongly disagree and

7= strongly agree.


Str

ong

ly

Dis

agre

e

Neu

tral

Str

ong

ly

Ag

ree

My choice to visit this Carnival was a wise one 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I am sure it was the right decision to visit this

Carnival

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

This was one of the best festivals I have ever

visited

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

My experience at this Carnival was exactly what

I needed

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I am satisfied with my decision to visit this

Carnival 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

This Carnival made me feel happy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I enjoyed myself at this Carnival 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

SECTION 4: Perceived socio-cultural impacts of the festival

10. These following questions ask you about the impacts of 2018 International Orange

Blossom Carnival. Please indicate your agreement or disagreement with the


7= strongly agree.


Str

ong

ly

Dis

agre

e

Neu

tral

Str

ong

ly

Ag

ree

The Carnival enhances image of the city 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Our city gains positive recognition as

result of the Carnival 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

City identity is enhanced through the

Carnival 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The Carnival is a celebration of our city 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The Carnival leaves ongoing positive

cultural impact in our city 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

142

The Carnival helps me show others why

our city is unique and special 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The Carnival contributes to sense of

residents’ well-being 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The Carnival helps improve quality of life

in city 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The Carnival provides opportunities for

residents to experience new activities

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Residents participating in the Carnival

have opportunity to learn new things

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I enjoy meeting Carnival

performers/workers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I feel a personal sense of pride and

recognition by participating in the Carnival 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The Carnival provides residents with

opportunity to discover/develop new

cultural skills/talents

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I am exposed to variety of cultural

experiences through the Carnival 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The Carnival acts as a showcase for new

ideas 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The Carnival contributes to my personal

health/well-being 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The Carnival leads to disruption in normal

routines of residents

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Our city is overcrowded during festival 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Traffic is increased to unacceptable levels

during the Carnival 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Recreational facilities of the city are

overused during the Carnival 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Litter is increased to unacceptable levels

during the Carnival

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The Carnival is intrusion into lives of city

residents

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The Carnival overtaxes available human

resources in the City 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Influx of the Carnival visitors reduces

privacy we have within the City 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Noise levels are increased to an

unacceptable level during the Carnival 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

143

SECTION 5: Social Well-being

11. The questions in this section concern social well-being. Please indicate your

agreement or disagreement with the following statements. The scale ranges from 1-

7, where 1 = strongly disagree and 7= strongly agree. There is no right or wrong

answer.


Str

ong

ly

Dis

agre

e

Neu

tral

Str

ong

ly

Ag

ree

I am more able to make sense of what is

happening in the world

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I feel I have more things in common with

others

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I feel more positive about other people 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I feel I now have more to contribute to the

world

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I feel more hopeful about the way things are

in the world

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

144

SECTION 6: Subjective well-being

12. The questions in this section ask you about your feelings. Please indicate how strong

you experience each emotion at the present moment. The scale ranges from 1-7,

where 1 = not at all and 7= extremely. There is no right or wrong answer.


No

t at

all

Mo

der

ate

Ex

trem

ely

Interested 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Distressed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Excited 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Upset 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Strong 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Guilty 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Scared 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Hostile 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Enthusiastic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Proud 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Irritable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Alert 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Ashamed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Inspired 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Nervous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Determined 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Attentive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Jittery 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Active 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Afraid 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

145

13. These following questions refer to your satisfaction with life. Please indicate your

agreement or disagreement with the following statements. The scale ranges from 1-

7, where 1 = strongly disagree and 7= strongly agree. There is no right or wrong

answer.


Str

ong

ly

Dis

agre

e

Neu

tral

Str

ong

ly

Ag

ree

In most ways my life is close to my ideal. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The conditions of my life are excellent. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I am satisfied with my life. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

So far, I have gotten the important things I

want in life.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

If I could live my life over, I would change

almost nothing. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

SECTION 7: Revisit Intention and Positive Word of Mouth Intention

14. These following questions refer to your future behavior to the International Orange

Blossom Carnival. Please indicate your agreement or disagreement with the


7= strongly agree.


Str

ongly

Dis

agre

e

Neu

tral

Str

ongly

Agre

e

I will come back to this Carnival in the future 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I will make efforts to revisit again 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I will recommend this Carnival to people I

know. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I will say positive things about this Carnival

to other people.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

146

SECTION 8: Demographic Information

The purpose of following questions is to gather some basic demographic

information on participations. Please place a mark in the category that describes you best

for the following questions. Your responses are for research purpose only.

15. What is your gender?

☐ Male ☐ Female

16. When were you born? …………. (Year)

17. What is your marital Status?

☐ Single ☐Married

18. What is the highest level of education you have completed? (Please check one)

☐ Primary education

☐ High school

☐ Two-year college

☐ Four-year college

☐ Graduate school

19. What is your current employment status?

☐ Employed Full-time

☐ Employed Part-time

☐ Self-employed

☐ Student

☐ Retired

☐ Unemployed

20. What is your monthly income level? (TL: Turkish currency)

☐ 0-1000

☐1001-2000

☐2001-3000

☐3001-4000

☐4001-5000

☐5001 and up

Thank you for completing the questionnaire. We appreciate your time and

willingness to share your opinion.

147

APPENDIX B

THE QUESTIONNAIRE IN TURKISH

BÖLÜM 1: Portakal Çiçeği Karnavalı’ndaki deneyimlerinize dayanarak lütfen aşağıdaki

soruları cevaplayınız.

1. Bu yıl dahil olmak üzere toplamda kaç kez Portakal Çiçeği Karnavalı’na katıldınız?

___________

2. Portakal Çiçegi Karnavalı dahil bu yıl kaç tane festivale katıldınız?

___________

3. Bu yılki Portakal Çiceği Karnavalına bugün dahil toplamda kac gün katıldınız?

□ Bir gün

□ Iki gün

□ Üç gün

□ Dört gün

□ Beş gün

4. Adana’da mı yaşıyorsunuz?

□ Evet

□ Hayır

5. Bugün Karnaval’a kimlerle katıldınız?

□ Yalnızım

□ Ailemle

□ Arkadaşlarımla

□ Organizasyon ekibiyle

□ Diğer _____________

6. Bu seneki karnavalda aktif bir rolünüz var mı? (Karnavalda çalışıyor musunuz?)

□ Evet

□ Hayır

7. Bir önceki soruya cevabınız evet ise aşağıdaki seçeneklerden birini işaretleyiniz.

Cevabınız hayır ise bir sonraki soruya geçiniz.

□ Karnavalda gönüllü olarak çalışıyorum

□ Karnavalda gelir amaçlı çalışıyorum

148

BÖLÜM 2: Festival Motivasyonları

8. Bu bölüm bu sene Portakal Çiçeği Karnavalı’na neden katıldığınıza dair sorular

içermektedir. Lütfen aşağıdaki ifadelere ne derecede katılıp katılmadığınızı

belirtiniz. Ölçek 1 ile 7 arasında değişmektedir. 1= kesinlikle katılmıyorum ve 7=

kesinlikle katılıyorum.

(Lütfen her ifade için sadece bir rakamı daire içine alınız)

Kes

inli

kle

kat

ılm

ıyo

rum

Ne

kat

ılıy

oru

m

ne

kat

ılm

ıyoru

m

Kes

inli

kle

kat

ılıy

oru

m

Karnavala katılan diger insanları gözlemlemek 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Karnavaldan keyif alan insanlarla birlikte olma

firsatı

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Benzer ilgi alanlarına sahip insanlarla bir arada

olmak

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Benimle aynı şeylerden zevk alan insanlarla bir

arada olmak

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Çünkü karnaval kalabalığından keyif alıyorum 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Karnavalı kendi başıma deneyimlemek 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Arkadaşlarımla birarada olmak 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Günlük hayatımın hızını değiştirmek 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Günlük rutinde bir değişiklik yapmak 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Yeni ve farklı şeyleri deneyimlemek. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Merak ettiğim için 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Hayatın taleplerinden uzaklaşmak için 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Çünkü coşku ve heyecan verici 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Çünkü bütün ailenin bundan hoslanacagini

düşündüm

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Böylece aile birlikte bir şeyler yapabilir 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Çünkü özel etkinliklerden hoşlanıyorum 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Çünkü görülecek ve yapılacak şeylerin

çeşitliliğini seviyorum

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Çünkü Portakal Çiçeği Karnavalı eşsizdir 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

149

BÖLÜM 3: Festival Memnuniyeti

9. Aşağıdaki sorular bu seneki Portakal Çiçeği Karnavalı’ndan memnuniyetinizle

alakalıdır. Lütfen aşağıdaki ifadelere ne derecede katılıp katılmadığınızı belirtiniz.

Ölçek 1 ile 7 arasında değişmektedir. 1= kesinlikle katılmıyorum ve 7= kesinlikle

katılıyorum.


Kes

inli

kle

kat

ılm

ıyo

rum

Ne

kat

ılıy

oru

m

ne

kat

ılm

ıyoru

m

Kes

inli

kle

kat

ılıy

oru

m

Bu karnavalı ziyaret etmek akıllıca bir

seçim oldu.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Bu karnavalı ziyaret etmenin doğru bir

karar olduğuna eminim.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Bu, ziyaret ettiğim en iyi festivallerden

biriydi.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Bu karnavaldaki deneyimim tam ihtiyacım

olan şeydi.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Bu karnavalı ziyaret etme kararımdan

memnunum. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Bu karnaval kendimi mutlu hissettirdi. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Bu karnavalda çok eğlendim. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

BÖLÜM 4: Festivalin Sosyal Etkisi

10. Aşağıdaki sorular bu seneki Portakal Çiçeği Karnavalı’nın yarattığı sosyal etkiyle

alakalıdır. Lütfen aşağıdaki ifadelere ne derecede katılıp katılmadığınızı belirtiniz.

Ölçek 1 ile 7 arasında değişmektedir. 1= kesinlikle katılmıyorum ve 7= kesinlikle

katılıyorum.


Kes

inli

kle

kat

ılm

ıyo

rum

Ne

kat

ılıy

oru

m

ne

kat

ılm

ıyoru

m

Kes

inli

kle

kat

ılıy

oru

m

Karnaval sehrimizin imajini

zenginleştiriyor.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Karnavalın sonucunda şehrimiz pozitif

tanınırlık kazanıyor. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Karnaval sayesinde şehir kimliğimiz

gelişiyor. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

150

Karnaval şehrimizin kutlamasıdır. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Karnaval şehrimizde devamlı. pozitif bir

kültürel etki bırakıyor. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Karnaval şehrimizin neden eşsiz ve özel

olduğunu başkalarına göstermeme

yardımcı oluyor.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Karnaval şehir halkının esenlik,

mutluluk hissine katkıda bulunuyor.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Karnaval şehrimizdeki yaşam kalitesini

arttırmaya yardımcı oluyor. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Karnaval halka yeni aktiveteler

deneyimleme fırsatı sunuyor. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Karnavala katılan halkın yeni şeyler

öğrenme fırsatı var. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Karnavalda performans gösteren kişilerle

bir arada bulunmaktan zevk alıyorum.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Karnavala katılarak kişisel bir gurur ve

tanınma duygusu hissediyorum.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Karnaval halka yeni kültürel

beceri/yeteneklerini keşfetme/geliştirme

fırsatı sunuyor.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Karnaval sayesinde çeşitli kültürel

deneyimlere maruz kalıyorum.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Karnaval yeni fikirler için bir vitrin

görevi görüyor. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Karnaval kişisel sağlık ve mutluğuma

katkıda bulunuyor. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Karnaval halkın normal rutininden

çıkmasını sağlıyor. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Şehir karnaval esnasında aşırı kalabalık

oluyor. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Trafik sorunu kabul edilemeyecek

düzeye ulaşıyor.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Şehrin rekreasyonel (eğlence, spor) alan

ve araçları haddinden fazla kullanılmış

oluyor.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Karnaval esnasında çevre kirliliği kabul

edilemez boyutlara ulaşıyor.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Karnaval halkın gündelik yaşamını ihlal

ediyor.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Karnaval halkın insan kaynaklarına aşırı

vergi yükü binmesine sebep oluyor. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Karnaval için şehrimize dışardan

ziyaretçi akışı halkın özeline zarar

vermektedir.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Karnaval esnasında gürültü kirliliği

kabul edilemez seviyelere ulaşmaktadır. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

151

BÖLÜM 5: Sosyal İyi Olma

11. Bu bölümdeki sorular sosyal sağlık hissi ile alakalıdır. Lütfen aşağıdaki ifadelere ne

derecede katılıp katılmadığınızı belirtiniz. Ölçek 1 ile 7 arasında değişmektedir. 1=

kesinlikle katılmıyorum ve 7= kesinlikle katılıyorum.


Kes

inli

kle

kat

ılm

ıyo

rum

Ne

kat

ılıy

oru

m

ne

kat

ılm

ıyoru

m

Kes

inli

kle

kat

ılıy

oru

m

Dünyada olup biteni daha iyi anlıyorum. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Diğer insanlarla daha çok ortak yanım

olduğunu hissediyorum.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Diğer insanlar hakkında daha pozitif

hissediyorum. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Şuan dünyaya katkıda bulunacak daha

çok şeye sahip olduğumu hissediyorum. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Dünyada olup bitenle alakalı daha

umutluyum. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

152

BÖLÜM 6: Öznel İyi Oluş

12. Bu bölüm hislerinizle alakalı sorular içermektedir. Lütfen aşağıdaki her bir duyguyu

şuan ne derecede hissettiğinizi belirtiniz. Ölçek 1 ile 7 arasında değişmektedir. 1=

kesinlikle katılmıyorum ve 7= kesinlikle katılıyorum. Doğru veya yanlış cevap

yoktur.


Hiç

his

setm

iyoru

m

Ort

a der

eced

e

his

sed

iyo

rum

Aşı

rı d

erec

ede

his

sed

iyo

rum

İlgili 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Sıkıntılı 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Heyecanlı 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Mutsuz 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Güçlü 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Suçlu 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Ürkmüş 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Düşmanca 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Hevesli 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Gururlu 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Asabi 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Uyanık 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Utanmış 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

İlhamlı 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Sinirli 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Kararlı 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Dikkatli 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Tedirgin 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Aktif 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Korkmuş 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

153

13. Bu bölümdeki sorular yaşam doyumu ile alakalıdır. Lütfen aşağıdaki ifadelere ne

derecede katılıp katılmadığınızı belirtiniz. Ölçek 1 ile 7 arasında değişmektedir. 1=

kesinlikle katılmıyorum ve 7= kesinlikle katılıyorum.


Kes

inli

kle

kat

ılm

ıyo

rum

Ne

kat

ılıy

oru

m

ne

kat

ılm

ıyoru

m

Kes

inli

kle

kat

ılıy

oru

m

Pek çok açıdan ideallerime yakın bir

yaşamım var.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Yaşam koşullarım mükemmeldir. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Yaşamım beni tatmin ediyor. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Şimdiye kadar, yaşamda istediğim

önemli şeyleri elde ettim.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Hayatımı bir daha yaşama şansım

olsaydı, hemen hemen hiçbir şeyi

değiştirmezdim.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

BÖLÜM 7: Tekrar ziyaret etme niyeti ve tavsiye niyeti

14. Bu bölümdeki sorular Portakal Çiçeği Karnavalını gelecekte tekrar ziyaret etme

niyetiniz ve karnavalı başkalarına tavsiye etme niyetinizle alakadır. Lütfen aşağıdaki

ifadelere ne derecede katılıp katılmadığınızı belirtiniz. Ölçek 1 ile 7 arasında

değişmektedir. 1= kesinlikle katılmıyorum ve 7= kesinlikle katılıyorum


Kes

inli

kle

kat

ılm

ıyoru

m

Ne

kat

ılıy

oru

m

ne

kat

ılm

ıyoru

m

Kes

inli

kle

kat

ılıy

oru

m

Bu karnavala gelecekte tekrar

geleceğim. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Karnavalı tekrar ziyaret etmeye

çalışacağım. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Tanıdıklarıma bu karnavala gelmelerini

tavsiye edeceğim.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Diğer insanlara karnaval hakkında

pozitif şeyler söyleyeceğim.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

154

BÖLÜM 8: Demografik Bilgiler

Bu bölümün amacı katılımcıların demografik özelliklerini görmektir. Lütfen size

en iyi tanımlayan seçenekleri seçiniz. Cevaplarınız gizli tutulacak olup sadece araştırma

amaçlı kullanılacaktır.

15. Cinsiyetinizi belirtiniz.

☐ Kadın ☐ Erkek

16. Hangi yılda doğdunuz? ………….

17. Medeni durumunuzu belirtiniz.

☐ Bekar ☐Evli

18. Eğitim seviyeniz nedir? (Lütfen sadece bir seçenek işaretleyiniz)

☐ İlk öğretim

☐ Lise

☐ İki yıllık yüksek okul

☐ Dört yıllık lisans

☐ Yüksek lisans

19. İş durumunuzu belirtiniz.

☐ Tam zamanlı çalışan

☐ Yarı zamanlı çalışan

☐ Kendi işinde çalışan

☐ Öğrenci

☐ Emekli

☐ Çalışmıyorum

20. Aylık gelir düzeyinizi belirtiniz.

☐ 0-1000 TL

☐1001-2000 TL

☐2001-3000 TL

☐3001-4000 TL

☐4001-5000 TL

☐5001 TL ve yukarısı

Zaman ayırdığınız ve anketi tamamladığınız için sonsuz teşekkürler!

155

APPENDIX C

BACK TRANSLATION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE

PART 1: Based on your experiences on Orange Blossom Carnival please answer the

following questions.

1. Including this year, how many times in total you have attended in Orange

Blossom Carnival?

______________

2. Including Orange Blossom Carnival how many festivals have you attended this

year?

_______________

3. How many days have you attended the Orange Blossom Carnival this year

including today?

□ One day

□ Two days

□ Three days

□ Four days

□ Five days

4. Do you live in Adana?

□ Yes

□ No

5. With whom you have attended the Carnival today?

□ I am alone

□ Family

□ Friends

□ Organization

□ Other _____________

6. Do you have an active role at the Orange Blossom Carnival this year? (Are you

working at the Carnival voluntarily or paid?)

□ Yes

□ No

156

7. If your answer is yes for the previous question please check one of the items

below. If your answer is no please skip to the question 8.

□ I work at the Carnival voluntarily

□ I work at the Carnival for income purposes

157

PART 2: Festival Motivations

8. This part includes questions about why you attend the Orange Blossom Carnival

this year. Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following

statements. The scale ranges between 1-7, 1 = strongly disagree and 7= strongly

agree.


Str

ong

ly

Dis

agre

e

Neu

tral

Str

ong

ly

Ag

ree

To observe the other people attending the Carnival 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Having a chance to be with people who enjoy the

Carnival

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

To be with people who have similar interests 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

To be with people who enjoy the same things that I

do

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Because I enjoy the Carnival crowds 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

To experience the Carnival by myself 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

To be with my friends 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

To change the speed of my daily life 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

To change my daily routine 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

To experience new and different things 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Because I am curious 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

To get away from the demands of life 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Because it is stimulating and exciting 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Because I thought the whole family would enjoy it 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

By this way the family can do something together 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Because I enjoy special events 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Because I like the variety of things to see and do 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Because the Orange Blossom Carnival is unique 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

158

PART 3: Festival Satisfaction

9. The questions below are about your satisfaction with Orange Blossom Carnival



agree.


Str

ong

ly

Dis

agre

e

Neu

tral

Str

ong

ly

Ag

ree

It was a wise choice to visit this Carnival 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I am sure that it was the right decision to

visit this Carnival

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

This was one of the best festivals I have ever

visited

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

My experience at this Carnival was exactly

what I needed

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I am satisfied with my decision to visit this

Carnival

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

This Carnival made me feel happy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I’ve enjoyed a lot at this festival 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

159

BÖLÜM 4: The Social Impacts of the Festival

10. The questions below are about the social impacts of Orange Blossom Carnival



agree.


Str

ong

ly

Dis

agre

e

Neu

tral

Str

ong

ly

Ag

ree

The Carnival is improving the image of our

City

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

As result of the Carnival our city gains

positive recognition

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The identity of our city is enhanced

through the Carnival

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The Carnival is a celebration of our city 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The Carnival leaves a permanent positive

cultural impact in our city

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The Carnival helps me to show others that

our city is unique and special

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The Carnival contributes to the sense of

well-being, happiness of residents

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The Carnival helps to improve the quality

of life in our city.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The Carnival gives opportunities for the

residents to experience new activities

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Residents participating in the Carnival

have opportunity to learn new things

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I enjoy being with the people who perform

at the Carnival

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I feel a personal pride and recognition by

participating in this Carnival

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

160

The Carnival provides opportunity for

residents to discover/improve their new

cultural skills/talents

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I am exposed to variety of cultural

experiences through this Carnival

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The Carnival is like a showcase for new

ideas

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The Carnival contributes to my personal

health and happiness

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The Carnival helps residents to get rid of

their daily routines

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Our city is overcrowded during the

Carnival

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Traffic is increased to unacceptable levels

during the Carnival

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Recreational places and facilities of the

city are overused during the Carnival

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Environmental pollution is increased to

unacceptable levels during festival

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The Carnival violates the lives of residents 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The Carnival causes overtaxes on

residents’ human resources

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Carnival visitors coming from out of town

violate the privacy of the residents

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Noise pollution is increased to an

unacceptable level during festival

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

161

PART 5: Social Well-being

11. The questions in this part are about social well-being. Please indicate whether you

agree or disagree with the following statements. The scale ranges between 1-7, 1

= strongly disagree and 7= strongly agree.


Str

ong

ly

Dis

agre

e

Neu

tral

Str

ong

ly

Ag

ree

I understand better what is happening in the

world

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I feel that I have more things in common

with other people

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I feel more positive about other people 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Now I feel that I have more things to

contribute to the world

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I feel more hopeful about the things

happening in the world

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

162

PART 6: Subjective well-being

12. This part includes questions about your feelings. Please indicate the degree of

your present feelings for each following emotion. The scale ranges between 1-7, 1

= strongly disagree and 7= strongly agree. There is no right or wrong answer.


No

t at

all

Mo

der

ate

Ex

trem

ely

Interested 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Distressed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Excited 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Upset 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Strong 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Guilty 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Scared 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Hostile 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Enthusiastic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Proud 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Irritable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Alert 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Ashamed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Inspired 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Nervous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Determined 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Attentive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Jittery 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Active 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Afraid 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

163

13. The questions in this part are related to the satisfaction of life. Please indicate

your agreement or disagreement with the following statements. The scale ranges

between 1-7, 1 = strongly disagree and 7= strongly agree. There is no right or

wrong answer.


Str

ong

ly

Dis

agre

e

Neu

tral

Str

ong

ly

Ag

ree

In most ways my life is close to my ideal. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The conditions of my life are excellent. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I am satisfied with my life. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

So far, I have gotten the important things I

want in life.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

If I could live my life over, I would change

almost nothing.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PART 7: Revisit Intention and Intention to Recommend

14. The questions in this part are related to your intention to revisit the Orange

Blossom Carnival in the future and your recommendations of the Carnival to

others. Please indicate your agreement or disagreement with the following


agree.


Str

ong

ly

Dis

agre

e

Neu

tral

Str

ong

ly

Ag

ree

I will come to this Carnival again in the

future

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I will try to revisit the Carnival again 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I will recommend this Carnival to people I

know.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I will say positive things about this Carnival

to other people.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

164

PART 8: Demographic Information

The purpose of this part is to see the demographic characteristics of the participants.

Please check the boxes which describe you best. Your responses will be kept confidential

and will be used only for research purposes.

15. What is your gender?

☐ Male ☐ Female

16. When were you born? ………….

17. What is your marital Status?

☐ Single ☐Married

18. What is your education level? (Please check one)

☐ Primary education

☐ High school

☐ Two-year college

☐ Four-year college

☐ Graduate school

19. Please indicate your employment status.

☐ Full-time employed

☐ Part-time employed

☐ Self-employed

☐ Student

☐ Retired

☐ Unemployed

20. Please indicate your monthly income level.

☐ 0-1000 TL

☐1001-2000 TL

☐2001-3000 TL

☐3001-4000 TL

☐4001-5000 TL

☐5001 TL and up

We appreciate for your time and completing the questionnaire!

165

APPENDIX D

INFORMATION SHEET FOR THE QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY

Information about Being in a Research Study

Clemson University

The impact of festival participation on social well-being and subjective well-being: A

study of the International Orange Blossom Carnival visitors in Turkey.

Description of the Study and Your Part in It

As a doctoral student under the direction of Dr. Sheila Backman in the Department

of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management at Clemson University, I am currently

conducting my doctoral dissertation. The main purpose of this study is to understand the

festival impacts on social well-being and subjective well-being of the festival attendees.

Your participation in this study is voluntary and it should take only 10-15 minutes. Your

part in the study will be to fill out a survey about your experiences in Orange Blossom

Carnival.

Risks and Discomforts

We do not know of any risks or discomforts to you in this research study.

Possible Benefits

Possible benefits include an increased understanding of festival impacts on

subjective well-being. The study will also provide important practical implications for

festival management which may provide better festival experience for you in the future.

166

Protection of Privacy and Confidentiality

We will do everything we can to protect your privacy and confidentiality. We will

not tell anybody outside of the research team that you were in this study or what

information we collected about you in particular.

Choosing to Be in the Study

You do not have to be in this study. You may choose not to take part and you may

choose to stop taking part at any time. You will not be punished in any way if you decide

not to be in the study or to stop taking part in the study.

Contact Information

If you have any question and/or comments concerning the study, please do not

hesitate to contact me at 0 532 638 26 88 or email me at [email protected]. Also, you

can contact my advisor, Dr. Sheila Backman at [email protected]. If you have any

question or concern about your right in this research study, please contact the Clemson

University Office or Research Compliance (ORC) at 864-656-6460.

Thank you for your assistance.

Nese YILMAZ

Ph.D. Student

Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management

Clemson University

167

APPENDIX E

INFORMATION SHEET FOR THE QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY (IN TURKISH)

Akademik araştırmada yer almakla ilgili bilgilendirme formu

Clemson Üniversitesi, ABD

Festival katılımının sosyal ve öznel iyi oluşa etkisi: Uluslararasi Portakal Çiçeği

Karnavalı ziyaretçileri üzerine bir çalışma.

Çalışmanın tanımı ve çalışmadaki yeriniz

Clemson Üniversitesi Park, Rekreasyon ve Turizm Bölümü’nde Dr Sheila J.

Backman’ın öğrencisi olarak doktora öğrenimi görüyorum, şuan doktara tezim üzerinde

çalışıyorum. Bu çalışmanın ana amacı festivalin katılımcılar üzerindeki bazı olumlu

etkilerini ölçmektir. Bu çalışmaya katılım tamamen gönüllü olup sadece 10-15 dakikanızı

alacaktır. Bu çalışmada size düşen Portakal Çiçeği Karnavalı deneyimlerinizle alakalı

olan anketi doldurmaktır.

Çalışmanın riskleri veya rahatsız edici yönleri

Çalışmanın herhangi bir riski veya rahatsız edici bir özelliği saptanmamıştır.

Çalışmanın öngörülen faydaları

Çalışma literatürde eksik olan bir konuyu daha iyi anlamaya yardımcı olarak

akademik fayda sağlayacak, ayrıca katılımcıların daha iyi festival deneyimleri olması için

festival yöneticilerine çözüm önerileri üreterek te pratik fayda sağlayacaktır.

Gizliliğin korunması

Verdiğiniz bilgiler tamamen gizli tutulacaktır. Çalışmada yer alan araştırmacılar

bu çalışmada yer aldığınızı ve bilgilerinizi hiçkimseyle paylaşmayacaktır.

168

Bu çalışmada yer almayı seçmek

Bu çalışmaya katılmak zorunlu değildir. Çalışmaya katılmayabilirsiniz veya

istediğiniz noktada çalışmadan ayrılabilirsiniz, herhangi bir zorlama veya cezası yoktur.

İletişim Bilgileri

Herhangi bir sorunuz, eleştiriniz veya şikayetiniz varsa lütfen benimle iletişime

geçmekten çekinmeyin telefon numaram 0532 638 26 88 ve e-mail adresim

[email protected]. Ayrıca danışmanım Dr. Sheila J. Backman’a da e-mail adresinden

ulaşabilirsiniz, [email protected]. Bu araştırma çalışmasında haklarınız hakkında

herhangi bir sorunuz veya endişeniz varsa, +1 864-656-6460 numaralı telefondan

Clemson Üniversitesi Ofisi veya Araştırma Birimi (ORC) ile lütfen iletişime geçin.

Yardımınız için teşekkür ederim.

Neşe YILMAZ

Doktora Öğrencisi

Parklar, Rekreasyon ve Turizm Yönetimi Bölümü

Clemson Üniversitesi



169

REFERENCES

Adana Population. (n.d.). Retrieved on February 26, 2018, from

https://www.nufusu.com/il/adana-nufusu.

Adanakulturturizm (2018) Retrieved on March 20, 2019, from

https://adana.ktb.gov.tr/Eklenti/67840,yillik-bazda-sinir-kapilarindan-giris-ve-cikis-

yapan-tu-.pdf?0.

Adams, K. B., Leibbrandt, S., & Moon, H. (2011). A critical review of the literature on

social and leisure activity and wellbeing in later life. Ageing and Society.

Adler, N. E., Boyce, T., Chesney, M. A., Cohen, S., Folkman, S., Kahn, R. L., & Syme,

S. L. (1994). Socioeconomic status and health. The challenge of the gradient.

American Psychologist, 49, 15–24.

Ahmad Puad, M. S., & Badarneh, M. B. (2011). Tourist satisfaction and repeat visitation ;

toward a new comprehensive model. International Journal of Human and Social

Sciences, 6(1), 38–45.

Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In Action

control (pp. 11-39). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human

decision processes, 50(2), 179-211.

Albanesi, C., Cicognani, E., & Zani, B. (2007). Sense of community, civic engagement

and social well-being in Italian adolescents. Journal of Community & Applied Social

Psychology, 17, 387–406.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A

review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological bulletin, 103(3), 411.

Andersson, T. D., & Getz, D. (2008). Stakeholder Management Strategies of Festivals.

Journal of Convention & Event Tourism, 9(3), 1–5.

Arcodia, C., & Whitford, M. (2007, January). Festival attendance and the development of

social capital. In Journal of Convention & Event Tourism (Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 1-18).

Taylor & Francis Group.

Argyle, M. (1999). Causes and correlates of happiness. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N.

Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 353–373).

New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

https://www.nufusu.com/il/adana-nufusu

https://adana.ktb.gov.tr/Eklenti/67840,yillik-bazda-sinir-kapilarindan-giris-ve-cikis-yapan-tu-.pdf?0

https://adana.ktb.gov.tr/Eklenti/67840,yillik-bazda-sinir-kapilarindan-giris-ve-cikis-yapan-tu-.pdf?0

170

Assaker, G., Vinzi, V. E., & O’Connor, P. (2011). Examining the effect of novelty

seeking, satisfaction, and destination image on tourists’ return pattern: A two factor,

non-linear latent growth model. Tourism Management, 32(4), 890–901.

Ateca-Amestoy, V., Serrano-del-Rosal, R., & Vera-Toscano, E. (2008). The leisure

experience. Journal of Socio-Economics, 37(1), 64–78.

Backman, K. F., Backman, S. J., Uysal, M., & Sunshine, K. M. (1995). Event tourism:

An examination of motivations and activities. Festival Management & Event

Tourism, 3, 15–24.

Bagiran, D., & Kurgun, H. (2013). A research on social impacts of the Foça Rock

Festival: the validity of the Festival Social Impact Attitude Scale. Current Issues in

Tourism, 3500(August), 1–19.

Ballantyne, J., Ballantyne, R., & Packer, J. (2014). Designing and managing music

festival experiences to enhance attendees’ psychological and social benefits.

Musicae Scientiae, 18(1), 65–83.

Berry, H. L., & Welsh, J. A. (2010). Social capital and health in Australia: An overview

from the household, income and labour dynamics in Australia survey. Social Science

and Medicine, 70(4), 588–596.

Besculides, A., Lee, M. E., & McCormick, P. J. (2002). Resident’s perceptions of the

cultural benefits of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(2), 303–319.

Birdir, S.S., Toksoz, D., & Bak, E. (2016). Karnavala Katılım Güdüleri: IV. Adana

Uluslararası Portakal Çiçeği Karnavalı Örneği. Cag University Journal of Social

Sciences, 13(1).

Birdir, S. S., Toksöz, D., & Birdir, K. (2018). Katılımcıların Karnavalın Geliştirilmesine

Yönelik Önerileri: Portakal Çiçeği Karnavalı Örneği. Çukurova Üniversitesi İktisadi

ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 22(2), 443-458.

Back, R. M., Bufquin, D., & Park, J. Y. (2018). Why do They Come Back? The Effects

of Winery Tourists’ Motivations and Satisfaction on the Number of Visits and

Revisit Intentions. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration,

1-25.

Bollen, K. A. (1989). The consequences of measurement error. Structural Equations with

Latent Variables, 151-178.

Bollen, K. A., & Long, J. S. (1993). Testing structural equation models (Vol. 154). Sage.

171

Bracalente, B., Chirieleison, C., Cossignani, M., Ferrucci, L., Gigliotti, M., & Giovanna

Ranalli, M. (2011). The economic impact of cultural events: The Umbria Jazz music

festival. Tourism Economics, 17(6), 1235–1255.

Brajša-Žganec, A., Ivanović, D., & Kaliterna Lipovčan, L. (2011). Personality traits and

social desirability as predictors of subjective well-being. Psihologijske teme, 20(2),

261-276.

Brown, M., Var, T., & Lee, S. (2002). Messina Hof Wine and Jazz Festival: an economic

impact analysis. Tourism Economics, 8(3), 273–279.

Buch, T., Milne, S., & Dickson, G. (2011). Multiple stakeholder perspectives on cultural

events: Auckland's pasifika festival. Journal of Hospitality Marketing &

Management, 20(3-4), 311-328.

Butler, R. W. (1993). Tourism–an evolutionary perspective. Tourism and Sustainable

Development: Piloting, Planning, Managing, Department of Geography

Publications Series, (37), 27-43.

Byrne, B. M. (2006). Structural equation modeling with eqs: basic concepts, applications,

and programming (multivariate applications).

Byrne, B. M. (2013). Structural equation modeling with EQS: Basic concepts,

applications, and programming. Routledge.

Caddick, N., & Smith, B. (2014). The impact of sport and physical activity on the well-

being of combat veterans: A systematic review. Psychology of Sport and Exercise.

Caldwell, L. L. (2005). Leisure and health: why is leisure therapeutic? British Journal of

Guidance & Counselling, 33(1), 7–26

Caputo, A. (2017). Social desirability bias in self-reported well-being measures:

Evidence from an online survey. Universitas Psychologica, 16(2), 245-255.

Cattell, R. B. (1978). The Scientific Use of Factor Analysis in Behavioral and Life.

Sciences.

New York: Plenum.Chen, C. C., Huang, W. J., & Petrick, J. F. (2016). Holiday recovery

experiences, tourism satisfaction and life satisfaction - Is there a relationship?

Tourism Management, 53, 140–147.

Chen, Y., Lehto, X. Y., & Cai, L. (2013). Vacation and well-being: A study of chinese

tourists. Annals of Tourism Research, 42, 284–310.

172

Chi, C. G. Q., & Qu, H. (2008). Examining the structural relationships of destination

image, tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty: An integrated approach. Tourism

Management, 29(4), 624–636.

Chiang, L. (Luke), Xu, A., Kim, J., Tang, L. (Rebecca), & Manthiou, A. (2017).

Investigating festivals and events as social gatherings: the application of social

identity theory. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 34(6), 779–792.

Chin, C. H., Law, F. Y., Lo, M. C., & Ramayah, T. (2018). The Impact of Accessibility

Quality and Accommodation Quality on Tourists' Satisfaction and Revisit Intention

to Rural Tourism Destination in Sarawak: The Moderating Role of Local

Communities' Attitude. Global Business and Management Research, 10(2), 115-

127.

Cicognani, E., Pirini, C., Keyes, C., Joshanloo, M., Rostami, R., & Nosratabadi, M.

(2008). Social participation, sense of community and social well being: A study on

American, Italian and Iranian University students. Social Indicators Research,

89(1), 97–112.

Cini, F., Kruger, S., & Ellis, S. (2013). A Model of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations on

Subjective Well-Being: The Experience of Overnight Visitors to a National Park.

Applied Research in Quality of Life, 8(1), 45–61.

Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis. Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Connolly, M. (2013). Some Like It Mild and Not Too Wet: The Influence of Weather on

Subjective Well-Being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14(2), 457–473.

Cordes, K. A., & Ibrahim, H. M. (1999). Applications in recreation and leisure: for today

and the future (No. Ed. 2). McGraw-Hill Book Company Europe.

Correia, A., Kozak, M., & Ferradeira, J. (2013). From tourist motivations to tourist

satisfaction. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research,

7(4), 411–424.

Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is Coefficient Alpha? An Examination of Theory and

Applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78 (1), 98-104.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on

subjective well-being: Happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 38(4), 668–678.

Crompton, J. L. (1979). Motivations for pleasure vacation. Annals of Tourism Research,

173

6(4), 408–424.

Crompton, J. L., McKay, S. L., & Society, J. H. (1997). Motives of visitors attending

festival events. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(2), 425–439.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Lefevre, J. (1989). Optimal Experience in Work and Leisure.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(5), 815–822.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience: Steps toward

enhancing the quality of life. Design Issues, 8(1), 80.

Dann, G. M. S. (1977). Anomie, ego-enhancement and tourism. Annals of Tourism

Research, 4(4), 184–194.

Daily Sabah (2018). Retrieved on May 27th 2018, from

https://www.dailysabah.com/feature/2018/04/11/6th-orange-blossom-carnival-

transforms-adana-into-mega-event-hub.

De Nisco, A., Mainolfi, G., Marino, V., & Napolitano, M. R. (2015). Tourism satisfaction

effect on general country image, destination image, and post-visit intentions.

Journal of Vacation Marketing, 21(4), 305–317.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human

behavior. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling (Vol. 53). de Jager, M.,

Coetzee, S., & Visser, D. (2008). Dimensions of social well-being in a motor

manufacturing organisation in south africa. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 18(1),

57–64.

de Jager, M., Coetzee, S., & Visser, D. (2008). Dimensions of social well-being in a

motor manufacturing organisation in south africa. Journal of Psychology in Africa,

18(1), 57–64.

Delamere, T.A. (2001), “Development of a scale to measure resident attitudes toward the

social impacts of community festivals, part II: verification of the scale”, Event

Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 25-38.

Delamere, T.A.,Wankel, L.M. and Hinch, T.D. (2001), “Development of a scale to

measure resident attitudes toward the social impacts of community festivals, part 1:

item generation and purification of the measure”, Event Management, Vol. 7 No. 1,

pp. 11-24.

Delbosc, A. R. (2008). Social Identity as a Motivator in Cultural Festivals. Visitor

Studies, 11(1), 3–15.

https://www.dailysabah.com/feature/2018/04/11/6th-orange-blossom-carnival-transforms-adana-into-mega-event-hub

https://www.dailysabah.com/feature/2018/04/11/6th-orange-blossom-carnival-transforms-adana-into-mega-event-hub

174

DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and application. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publication.

de Vos, J., Schwanen, T., van Acker, V., & Witlox, F. (2013). Travel and Subjective

Well-Being: A Focus on Findings, Methods and Future Research Needs. Transport

Reviews, 33(4), 421–442.

Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction With

Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75.

Dogan, T., & Totan, T. (2013). Psychometric properties of Turkish version of the

Subjective Happiness Scale. The Journal of Happiness & Well-Being, 1(1), 21-28.

Douglas, N., & Derrett, R. (2001). Special interest tourism. John Wiley and Sons

Australia, Ltd.

Doygun, H. (2005). Urban development in Adana, Turkey, and its environmental

consequences. International journal of environmental studies, 62(4), 391-401.

Earls, Z. (1993). First night celebration: Building community through the arts. Festival

and Event Tourism, 1, 32-33.

Ecob, R., & Smith, G. D. (1999). Income and health: What is the nature of the

relationship? Social Science & Medicine, 48, 693–705.

Edginton, C. R., Jordan, D. J., DeGraaf, D. G., & Edginton, S. R. (1995). Leisure and life

satisfaction: foundational perspectives. Brown & Benchmark.

Epstein, J., Osborne, R. H., Elsworth, G. R., Beaton, D. E., & Guillemin, F. (2015).

Cross-cultural adaptation of the Health Education Impact Questionnaire:

Experimental study showed expert committee, not back-translation, added value.

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 68(4), 360–369.

Ettema, D., Gärling, T., Olsson, L. E., & Friman, M. (2010). Out-of-home activities,

daily travel, and subjective well-being. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and

Practice, 44(9), 723–732.

Fichman, M., & Cummings, J. N. (2003). Multiple imputation for missing data: Making

the most of what you know. Organizational Research Methods, 6(3), 282-308.

Filep, S. (2012). Moving Beyond Subjective Well-Being: A Tourism Critique. Journal of

Hospitality & Tourism Research, 38(2), 266–274.

Finney, S. J., & DiStefano, C. (2006). Non-normal and categorical data in structural

175

equation modeling. Structural equation modeling: A second course, 10(6), 269-314.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with

unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 39-

50.

Franzen, A., & Meyer, R. (2009). Environmental attitudes in cross-national perspective:

A multilevel analysis of the ISSP 1993 and 2000. European sociological review,

26(2), 219-234.

Fredline, E., & Faulkner, B. (2000). Host community reactions: A cluster analysis.

Annals of Tourism Research, 27(3), 763–784.

Fredline, L., Jago, L., & Deery, M. (2003). The development of a generic scales to

measure the social impacts of events. Event Management, 8(1), 23–37.

Gençöz, T. (2000). Positive and Negative Affect Schedule: A study of validity and

reliability. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi.

Getz, D. (2008). Event tourism: Definition, evolution, and research. Tourism

Management, 29(3), 403–428.

Getz, D., & Reinhold, V. N. (1991). Festivals, special events and tourism. Annals of

Tourism Research, 18(2), 350–353.

Gilbert, D., & Abdullah, J. (2002a). A study of the impact of the expectation of a holiday

on an individual’s sense of well-being. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 8(4), 352–

361.

Google (n.d.). Retrieved February 23, 2018, from

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Turkey/@38.7412482,26.1844276,5z/data=!3

m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x14b0155c964f2671:0x40d9dbd42a625f2a!8m2!3d38.96374

5!4d35.243322.

Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gould, J., Moore, D., McGuire, F., & Stebbins, R. (2008). Development of the serious

leisure inventory and measure. Journal of Leisure Research, 40(1), 47-68.

Godbey, G. (2009). Outdoor recreation, health, and wellness: Understanding and

enhancing the relationship. Recreation, (May), 1–42.

Götz, O., Liehr-Gobbers, K., & Krafft, M. (2010). Evaluation of structural equation

models using the partial least squares (PLS) approach. In Handbook of partial least

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Turkey/@38.7412482,26.1844276,5z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x14b0155c964f2671:0x40d9dbd42a625f2a!8m2!3d38.963745!4d35.243322



176

squares (pp. 691-711). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Grunwell, S., Ha, I., & Swanger, S. (2011). Evaluating the Economic and Fiscal Impact

of an International Cultural Heritage Festival on a Regional Economy: Folkmoot

USA. Tourism, Culture & Communication, 11, 117–130.

Gursoy, D., Jurowski, C., & Uysal, M. (2002). Resident attitudes: A structural modeling

approach. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1), 79–105.

Gursoy, D., Kim, K., & Uysal, M. (2004). Perceived impacts of festivals and special

events by organizers: An extension and validation. Tourism Management, 25(2),

171–181.

Haberturk (2018). Retrieved on May 20th, 2018 from https://www.haberturk.com/adana-

portakal-cicegi-festivali-nde-15-milyon-kisiyi-agirladi-1927731-ekonomi Hair, J. F.,

Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate

data analysis (Vol. 6).

Hair, J., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. & Anderson, R.E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A

global perspective: Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson. Hatcher, L. (1994). A

step-by-step approach to using the SAS system for factor analysis & structural

equation modeling. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.

Headey, B., Veenhoven, R., & Wearing, A. (1991). Top-down versus bottom-up theories

of subjective well-being. Social indicators research, 24(1), 81-100.

Heo, J., Lee, Y., McCormick, B. P., & Pedersen, P. M. (2010). Daily experience of

serious leisure, flow and subjective well-being of older adults. Leisure Studies,

29(2), 207–225.

Hill, P. L., Turiano, N. A., Mroczek, D. K., & Roberts, B. W. (2012). Examining

concurrent and longitudinal relations between personality traits and social well-

being in adulthood. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(6), 698–705.

Hu, L. T., Bentler, P. M., & Kano, Y. (1992). Can test statistics in covariance structure

analysis be trusted?. Psychological bulletin, 112(2), 351.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity

to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424- 453.

Hultman, M., Skarmeas, D., Oghazi, P., & Beheshti, H. M. (2015). Achieving tourist

loyalty through destination personality, satisfaction, and identification. Journal of

Business Research, 68(11), 2227–2231.

177

Huta, V., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). Pursuing Pleasure or Virtue: The Differential and

Overlapping Well-Being Benefits of Hedonic and Eudaimonic Motives. Journal of

Happiness Studies, 11(6), 735–762.

Huta, V., & Waterman, A. S. (2014). Eudaimonia and its distinction from hedonia:

Developing a classification and terminology for understanding conceptual and

operational definitions. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(6), 1425-1456.

Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1980). The social psychology of leisure and recreation. Dubuque, IA:

Wm. C. Brown.

Iso-Ahola, S. E., & Park, C. J. (1996). Leisure-related social support and self-

determination as buffers of the stress-illness relationship. Journal of Leisure

Research.

Ito, E., Walker, G. J., Liu, H., & Mitas, O. (2017). A cross-cultural/national study of

Canadian, Chinese, and Japanese university students' leisure satisfaction and

subjective well-being. Leisure Sciences, 39(2), 186-204.

Ivlevs, A. (2017). Happy Hosts? International Tourist Arrivals and Residents’ Subjective

Well-being in Europe. Journal of Travel Research, 56(5), 599–612.

Jamaludin, N. L., Sam, D. L., Sandal, G. M., & Adam, A. A. (2016). Personal values,

subjective well-being and destination-loyalty intention of international students.

SpringerPlus, 5(1).

Jepson, A., & Stadler, R. (2017). Conceptualizing the impact of festival and event

attendance upon family quality of life (QOL). Event Management, 21(1), 47–60.

Joshanloo, M., Rastegar, P., & Bakhshi, A. (2012). The Big Five personality domains as

predictors of social wellbeing in Iranian university students. Journal of Social and

Personal Relationships, 29(5), 639–660.

Kahneman, D., & Deaton, A. (2010). High income improves evaluation of life but not

emotional well-being. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 107(38),

16489-16493.

Kahneman, D., Diener, E., & Schwarz, N. (1999). Well-being: The foundations of

hedonic psychology. Health San Francisco, xii, 593.

Kapteyn, A., Lee, J., Tassot, C., Vonkova, H., & Zamarro, G. (2015). Dimensions of

Subjective Well-Being. Social Indicators Research (Vol. 123). Springer Netherlands.

Karaca, O. B., Yildirim, O., & Çakici, A. C. (2017). Adana Uluslararası Portakal Çiçeği

178

Karnavalına Katılan Ziyaretçilerin Algı ve Memnuniyetleri/The Satisfactions and

the Perceptions of the Visitors Joining Adana International Orange Blossom

Carnival. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 14(37).

Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being

revisited. Journal of personality and social psychology, 69(4), 719.

Keyes, C. L. M. (1998). Social Well-Being. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61(2), 121–

140.

Keyes, C. L. (2002). The mental health continuum: From languishing to flourishing in

life. Journal of health and social behavior, 207-222.

Keyes, C. L. M. (2006). Mental health in adolescence: Is America’s youth flourishing?

American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 76(3), 395–402.

Keyes, C. L., & Shapiro, A. D. (2004). Social well-being in the United States: A

descriptive epidemiology. How healthy are we, 15(3), 350-372.

Kim, H., Lee, S., Uysal, M., Kim, J., & Ahn, K. (2015). Nature-Based Tourism:

Motivation and Subjective Well-Being. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing,

32(sup1), S76–S96.

Kim, S., Lee, Y. K., & Lee, C. K. (2017). The moderating effect of place attachment on

the relationship between festival quality and behavioral intentions. Asia Pacific

Journal of Tourism Research, 22(1), 49–63.

Kim, S., Park, J. H., Lee, D. K., Son, Y. H., Yoon, H., Kim, S., & Yun, H. J. (2017). The

impacts of weather on tourist satisfaction and revisit intention: a study of South

Korean domestic tourism. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 22(9), 895-

908.

Kim, J.-H., Ritchie, J. R. B., & Tung, V. W. S. (2010). The Effect of Memorable

Experience on Behavioral Intentions in Tourism: A Structural Equation Modeling

Approach. Tourism Analysis, 15(6), 637–648.

Kim, Y. H., Kim, M., Goh, B. K., & Antun, J. M. (2011). The role of money: The impact

on food tourists’ satisfaction and intention to revisit food events. Journal of

Culinary Science and Technology, 9(2), 85–98.

Kitterlin, M., & Yoo, M. (2014). Festival motivation and loyalty factors. Encontros

Científicos-Tourism & Management Studies, 10(1), 119-126.

Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2 ed.). New

179

York: The Guilford Press.

Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford

publications.

Knobloch, U., Robertson, K., & Aitken, R. (2014). (Mis)Understanding the Nature of

Tourist Experiences. Tourism Analysis, 19(5), 599–608.

Knobloch, U., Robertson, K., & Aitken, R. (2017). Experience, Emotion, and

Eudaimonia: A Consideration of Tourist Experiences and Well-being. Journal of

Travel Research, 56(5), 651–662.

Kong, F., Hu, S., Xue, S., Song, Y., & Liu, J. (2015). Extraversion mediates the

relationship between structural variations in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and

social well-being. NeuroImage, 105, 269–275.

Kotler, P. (2000). Marketing Management , Millenium Edition. Marketing Management,

23(6), 188–193.

Kruger, S., Rootenberg, C., & Ellis, S. (2013). Examining the Influence of the Wine

Festival Experience on Tourists’ Quality of Life. Social Indicators Research,

111(2), 435–452.

Kuykendall, L., Tay, L., & Ng, V. (2015). Leisure engagement and subjective well-being:

A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 141(2), 364–403.

Laing, J., & Mair, J. (2015). Music festivals and social inclusion–the festival organizers’

perspective. Leisure Sciences, 37(3), 252-268.

Lam, T., & Hsu, C. H. (2004). Theory of planned behavior: Potential travelers from

China. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 28(4), 463-482.

Lau, C. Y. L., & Li, Y. (2015). Producing a sense of meaningful place: Evidence from a

cultural festival in Hong Kong. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 13(1), 56–

77.

Lee, I., Arcodia, C., & Lee, T. J. (2012). Benefits of visiting a multicultural festival: The

case of South Korea. Tourism Management, 33(2), 334–340.

Lee, Y.-K., Kim, S., Kim, M. S., & Choi, J. G. (2014). Antecedents and interrelationships

of three types of pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Business Research, 67(10),

2097–2105.

Lee, Y.-K., Kim, S., Lee, C.-K., & Kim, S. H. (2014). Impact of mega event on visitors’

180

attitude toward the hosting country: Using trust transfer theory. Journal of Travel &

Tourism Marketing, 31(4), 507–521.

Lee, J., Kyle, G., & Scott, D. (2012). The mediating effect of place attachment on the

relationship between festival satisfaction and loyalty to the festival hosting

destination. Journal of Travel Research, 51(6), 754-767.

Lee, I. S., Lee, T. J., & Arcodia, C. (2013). The effect of community attachment on

cultural festival visitors’ satisfaction and future intentions. Current Issues in

Tourism, 3500(February 2015), 1–13.

Lee, Y.-K., Lee, C.-K., Choi, J., Yoon, S. M., & Hart, R. J. (2014). Tourism’s role in

urban regeneration: Examining the impact of environmental cues on emotion,

satisfaction, loyalty, and support for Seoul’s revitalized Cheonggyecheon stream

district. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 22(5), 726–749.

Lee, C. K., Lee, Y. K., & Wicks, B. E. (2004). Segmentation of festival motivation by

nationality and satisfaction. Tourism management, 25(1), 61-70.

Lee, J., Lee, C., & Yoon, Y. (2009). Investigating Differences in Antecedents To Value

Between First‐Time and Repeat Festival‐Goers. Journal of Travel & Tourism

Marketing, 26(7), 688–702.

Lee, S. Y., Petrick, J. F., & Crompton, J. (2007). The roles of quality and intermediary

constructs in determining festival attendees' behavioral intention. Journal of Travel

Research, 45(4), 402-412.

Linnemann, A., Ditzen, B., Strahler, J., Doerr, J. M., & Nater, U. M. (2015). Music

listening as a means of stress reduction in daily life. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 60,

82–90.

Lin, Z., Chen, Y., & Filieri, R. (2017). Resident-tourist value co-creation: The role of

residents' perceived tourism impacts and life satisfaction. Tourism Management, 61,

436-442.

Li, X. (Robert), Cheng, C. K., Kim, H., & Petrick, J. F. (2008). A systematic comparison

of first-time and repeat visitors via a two-phase online survey. Tourism

Management, 29(2), 278–293.

Li, X., & Petrick, J. F. (2005). A Review of Festival and Event Motivation Studies. Event

Management, 9(4), 239–245.

Lomax, R. G., & Schumacker, R. E. (2004). A beginner's guide to structural equation

modeling. psychology press.

181

Lv, Q., & Xie, X. (2017). Community involvement and place identity: the role of

perceived values, perceived fairness, and subjective well-being. Asia Pacific Journal

of Tourism Research, 22(9), 951–964.

Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect:

Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 803–855.

Lyubomksky, S., Sheldon, K. M., & Schkade, D. (2005). Pursuing happiness: The

architecture of sustainable change. Review of General Psychology.

MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and

determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological

methods, 1(2), 130.

MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor

analysis. Psychological methods, 4(1), 84.

Magnus, K. B., & Diener, E. (1991). A longitudinal analysis of personality, life events,

and subjective well-being (Bachelor's thesis, in Liberal Arts and Sciences,

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign).

Mannell, R. C., & Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1987). Psychological nature of leisure and tourism

experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 14, 314–331.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A Theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4),

370–396.

Mayfield, T. L., & Crompton, J. L. (1995). Development of an Instrument for Identifying

Community Reasons for Staging a Festival. Journal of Travel Research, 33, 37–44.

McCabe, S., & Johnson, S. (2013). The happiness factor in tourism: Subjective well-

being and social tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 41, 42–65.

McKercher, B., Mei, W. S., & Tse, T. S. (2006). Are short duration cultural festivals

tourist attractions? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14(1), 55-66.

McMorland, L. A., & Mactaggart, D. (2007). Traditional Scottish music events: Native

Scots attendance motivations. Event Management, 11(1-2), 57-69.

Mellor, D., Hapidzal, F. M., Teh, K., Ganesan, R., Yeow, J., Latif, R. A., & Cummins, R.

(2012). Strong Spiritual Engagement and Subjective Well-Being: A Naturalistic

Investigation of the Thaipusam Festival. Journal of Spirituality in Mental Health,

14(3), 209–225.

182

Meretse, A. R., Mykletun, R. J., & Einarsen, K. (2015). Participants’ benefits from

visiting a food festival – the case of the Stavanger food festival (Gladmatfestivalen).

Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 2250(November), 1–17.

Mertler, C., and R. Vannatta (2004). "Pre-Analysis Data Screening" In Advanced an

Multivariate Statistical Methods edited by C. Mertler and R. Vannatta. Glendale,

CA: Pyrczak Publishing, pp. 25-66.

Micceri, T. (1989). The unicorn, the normal curve, and other improbable creatures.

Psychological bulletin, 105(1), 156.

Mohr, K., Backman, K. F., Gahan, L. W., & Backman, S. J. (1993). An investigation of

festival motivations and event satisfaction by visitor type. Festival Management and

Event Tourism, 1(3), 89-97.

Muller, A. (2002). Education, income inequality, and mortality: a multiple regression

analysis. Bmj, 324(7328), 23.

Murray, M., & Lamont, A. (2012). Community music and social/health psychology:

Linking theoretical and practical concerns. Music, health & wellbeing, 76-86.

Nawijn, J., Marchand, M. A., Veenhoven, R., & Vingerhoets, A. J. (2010). Vacationers

happier, but most not happier after a holiday. Applied Research in Quality of Life,

5(1), 35–47.

Nawijn, J., & Veenhoven, R. (2013). Happiness through leisure. In Positive Leisure

Science: From Subjective Experience to Social Contexts (pp. 193–209).

Neal, J. D., Sirgy, M. J., & Uysal, M. (1999). The role of satisfaction with leisure

travel/tourism services and experience in satisfaction with leisure life and overall

life. Journal of Business Research, 44(3), 153-163.

Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. O., & Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling procedures: Issues and

applications. Sage Publications.

Ng, A. K., Ho, D. Y. F., Wong, S. S., & Smith, I. (2003). In search of the good life: a

cultural odyssey in the East and West. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology

Monographs, 129(4), 317–63.

Nisanda Adanada (n.d.). Retrieved February 23, 2018, from

http://www.nisandaadanada.com/en/carnival/about-orange-flower-carnival.

Nunnaly, J. D. and Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory. New York, NY:

http://www.nisandaadanada.com/en/carnival/about-orange-flower-carnival

183

McGraw HillNewman, D. B., Tay, L., & Diener, E. (2014). Leisure and Subjective

Well-Being: A Model of Psychological Mechanisms as Mediating Factors. Journal

of Happiness Studies, 15(3), 555–578.

OECD (2013), OECD Guidelines on Measuring Subjective Well-being, OECD

Publishing, Paris.

Oishi, S., Graham, J., Kesebir, S., & Galinha, I. C. (2013). Concepts of Happiness Across

Time and Cultures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(5), 559–577.

Okulicz-Kozaryn, A., & Strzelecka, M. (2017). Happy Tourists, Unhappy Locals. Social

Indicators Research, 134(2), 789–804.

Oliver, R. L. (1980). “A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of

Satisfaction Decisions.” Journal of Marketing Research, 17 (4): 460-69.

Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. New

York: McGraw-Hill.Owens, J. (1981). Aristotle on Leisure. Canadian Journal of

Philosophy, 11(4), 713–723.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Collins, K. M. (2007). A typology of mixed methods sampling

designs in social science research. The qualitative report, 12(2), 281-316.

Özdemir, G., & Çulha, O. (2009). Satisfaction and Loyalty of Festival Visitors. Anatolia,

20(2), 359–373.

Packer, J., & Ballantyne, J. (2011). The impact of music festival attendance on young

people’s psychological and social well-being. Psychology of Music, 39(2), 164–181.

Pallant, J. (2001). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using

SPSS for Windows (versions 10 and 11): SPSS student version 11.0 for Windows.

Open University Press.

Papadimitriou, D. (2013). Service Quality Components as Antecedents of Satisfaction

and Behavioral Intentions: The Case of a Greek Carnival Festival. Journal of

Convention & Event Tourism, 14(March), 42–64.

Park, K., Reisinger, Y., Kang, H., Park, K.-S., & Kang, H.-J. (2008). Visitors’ Motivation

for Attending the South Beach Wine and Food Festival, Miami Beach, Florida.

Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 25(2), 161–181.

Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Personality processes and individual differences. Two-Component

Models of Socially Desirable Responding.

184

Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the Satisfaction With Life Scale.

Psychological Assessment, 5(2), 164–172.

Peck, M. (2001). Looking Back at Life and Its Influence on Subjective Well-Being.

Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 35(2), 3–20.

Pyke, S., Hartwell, H., Blake, A., & Hemingway, A. (2016). Exploring well-being as a

tourism product resource. Tourism Management, 55, 94–105.

Richard, P. Bagozzi, & Youjae, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation

models. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 16(1), 74-94.

Richman, W. L., Kiesler, S., Weisband, S., & Drasgow, F. (1999). A meta-analytic study

of social desirability distortion in computer-administered questionnaires, traditional

questionnaires, and interviews. Journal of applied psychology, 84(5), 754.

Rickard, N. (2012). Music listening and emotional well-being. In Lifelong engagement

with music: Benefits for mental health and well-being. (pp. 209–240).

Rojas, M., & Veenhoven, R. (2013). Contentment and affect in the estimation of

happiness. Social Indicators Research, 110(2), 415-431.

Rollero, C., & de Piccoli, N. (2010). Does place attachment affect social well-being?

Revue Europeene de Psychologie Appliquee, 60(4), 233–238.

Rollins, R. (2007). Measuring the Social Impact of Festivals. Annals of Tourism

Research, 34(3), 805–808.

Rubin, D. B. (1976). Inference and missing data. Biometrika, 63(3), 581-592. Fichman,

M., & Cummings, J. N. (2003). Multiple imputation for missing data: Making the

most of what you know. Organizational Research Methods, 6(3), 282-308.

Rust, R. T., & Oliver, R. L. (Eds.). (1993). Service quality: New directions in theory and

practice. Sage Publications.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of

intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist,

55(1), 68–78.

Ryff, Carol D. (1989). Happiness is Everything, or is it? Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069–1081.

Ryff, C D, & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisted.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(NOVEMBER 1995), 719–727.

185

Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2010). Ensuring positiveness of the scaled difference chi-

square test statistic. Psychometrika, 75(2), 243-248.

Scarrott, M. (2009). Sport, Leisure and Tourism Information Sources. Taylor & Francis.

Serenko, A., & Stach, A. (2009). The Impact of Expectation Disconfirmation on

Customer Loyalty and Recommendation Behavior: Investigating Online Travel and

Tourism Services. Journal of Information Technology Management, XX(3), 26–41.

Schreiber, J. B., Nora, A., Stage, F. K., Barlow, E. A., & King, J. (2006). Reporting

structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The

Journal of educational research, 99(6), 323-338.

Shapiro, A., & Keyes, C. L. M. (2008). Marital status and social well-being: Are the

married always better off? Social Indicators Research, 88(2), 329–346.

(Shawn) Jang, S. C., & Feng, R. (2007). Temporal destination revisit intention: The

effects of novelty seeking and satisfaction. Tourism Management, 28(2), 580–590.

Shin, K., & You, S. (2013). Leisure Type, Leisure Satisfaction and Adolescents’

Psychological Wellbeing. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 7(2), 53–62.

Sibthorp, J. (2000). Measuring weather… and adventure education: Exploring the

instruments of adventure education research. Journal of Experiential Education,

23(2), 99-107.

Sirgy, M. J. (2010). Toward a Quality-of-Life Theory of Leisure Travel Satisfaction.

Journal of Travel Research, 49(June 2009), 246–260.

Sirgy, M. J., & Uysal, M. (2016). Developing a eudaimonia research agenda in travel and

tourism. In Handbook of eudaimonic well-being (pp. 485-495). Springer, Cham.

Sirgy, M. J., Uysal, M., & Kruger, S. (2017). Towards a Benefits Theory of Leisure

Well-Being. Applied Research in Quality of Life.

Small, K. (2007). Social dimensions of community festivals: An application of factor

analysis in the development of the social impact perception (SIP) scale. Event

Management, 11(1–2), 45–55.

Small, K., & Edwards, D. (2003). Evaluating the socio-cultural impacts of a festival on a

host community: A case study of the Australian Festival of the Book. In T. Griffin &

R. Harris (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th Annual Conference of the Asia Pacific

Tourism Association (pp. 580–593). Sydney: School of Leisure, Sport and Tourism,

University of Technology Sydney.

186

Smead, V. S. (1991, June). Measuring well-being is not easy. In Annual Convention of

the American Association of Applied and Preventive Psychology.

Son, S. M., & Lee, K. M. (2011). Assessing the influences of festival quality and

satisfaction on visitor behavioral intentions. Event Management, 15(3), 293–303.

Song, H. M., Kim, K. S., & Yim, B. H. (2017). The mediating effect of place attachment

on the relationship between golf tourism destination image and revisit intention.

Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 22(11), 1182-1193.

Steger, M. F., Kashdan, T. B., & Oishi, S. (2008). Being good by doing good: Daily

eudaimonic activity and well-being. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(1), 22–

42.

Stylos, N., Bellou, V., Andronikidis, A., & Vassiliadis, C. A. (2017). Linking the dots

among destination images, place attachment, and revisit intentions: A study among

British and Russian tourists. Tourism Management, 60, 15–29.

Su, L., Swanson, S. R., & Chen, X. (2016). The effects of perceived service quality on

repurchase intentions and subjective well-being of Chinese tourists: The mediating

role of relationship quality. Tourism Management, 52, 82-95.

Şimşek, Ö. F. (2009). Happiness revisited: Ontological well-being as a theory-based

construct of subjective well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 10(5), 505-522.

Tabachnick, B. G., and L. S. Fidell (1996). Using Multivariate Statistics. New York:

Harper Collins.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.).

Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. 2013. Using Multivariate Statistics (6th ed.). New York:

Pearson.

Tam, K.-P., Lau, H. P. B., & Jiang, D. (2012). Culture and Subjective Well-Being.

Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(1), 23–31.

Tanksale, D. (2015). Big five personality traits: Are they really important for the

subjective well-being of indians? International Journal of Psychology, 50(1), 64–69.

Tasnim, Z. (2016). Happiness at workplace: Building a conceptual framework. World,

6(2).

Tastan, H., Enes, K., & Sahin, E. (2018). Determination of the Contributions of Local

187

Authorities to Develop Gastronomy Tourism: Adana Sample. ADVANCES IN

GLOBAL BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS, 104.

Taylor, R. J., Chatters, L. M., Hardison, C. B., & Riley, A. (2001). Informal Social

Support Networks and Subjective Well-Being among African Americans. Journal of

Black Psychology, 27(4), 439–463.

Tellegen, A., Lykken, D. T., Bouchard, T. J., Wilcox, K. J., Segal, N. L., & Rich, S.

(1988). Personality similarity in twins reared apart and together. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1031–1039.

Tewari, S., Khan, S., Hopkins, N., Srinivasan, N., & Reicher, S. (2012). Participation in

Mass Gatherings Can Benefit Well-Being: Longitudinal and Control Data from a

North Indian Hindu Pilgrimage Event. PLoS ONE, 7(10).

Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Understanding

Concepts. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Thrane, C. (2002). Music quality, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions within a jazz

festival context. Event Management, 7(3), 143–150.

Tian-Cole, J., L. Crompton, and V. L. Willson (2002). “An Empirical Investigation of the

Relationships between Service Quality, Satisfaction and Behavioral Intentions

Among Visitors to a Wildlife Refuge.” Journal of Leisure Research, 34 (1): 1–24.

Tohmo, T. (2005). Economic impacts of cultural events on local economies: An input-

output analysis of the Kaustinen Folk Music Festival. Tourism Economics, 11(3),

431–451.

Tosun, C. (2002). Host perceptions of impacts: A comparative tourism study. Annals of


Um, S., Chon, K., & Ro, Y. H. (2006). Antecedents of revisit intention. Annals of


Walker, G. J., & Ito, E. (2017). Mainland Chinese Canadian Immigrants’ Leisure

Satisfaction and Subjective Well-Being: Results of a Two-Year Longitudinal Study.

Leisure Sciences, 39(2), 174–185.

Wang, T. R., Min, S. D., & Kim, S. K. (2013). Fulfillment of sport spectator motives:

The mediation effect of well-being. Social Behavior and Personality: an

international journal, 41(9), 1421-1433.

Watson, D., & Clark, L. (1999). The PANAS-X Manual for the Positive and Negative

188

Affect Schedule-Expanded Form. Iowa Research Online, 277(6), 1–27.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief

measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070.

Weston, R., & Gore Jr, P. A. (2006). A brief guide to structural equation modeling. The

counseling psychologist, 34(5), 719-751.

Wheatley, D., & Bickerton, C. (2017). Subjective well-being and engagement in arts,

culture and sport. Journal of Cultural Economics, 41(1), 23–45.

Winkle, C. M. Van, & Woosnam, K. M. (2013). Sense of community and perceptions of

festival social impacts. International Journal of Event and Festival Management, 5,

22–38.

WHO (1946). Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organization as adopted

by the International Health Conference, New York: World Health Organization, 19-

22 June, 1946. Available from: http://www.who.int/suggestions/faq/en/. Accessed

March 23, 2017.

Winkle, C. M. Van, & Woosnam, K. M. (2013). Sense of community and perceptions of

festival social impacts. International Journal of Event and Festival Management, 5,

22–38.

Wong, I. A., & Dioko, L. D. A. (2013). Understanding the mediated moderating role of

customer expectations in the customer satisfaction model: The case of casinos.

Tourism Management, 36, 188-199.

Wong, P. T. P. (2011). Positive psychology 2.0: Towards a balanced interactive model of

the good life. Canadian Psychology, 52(2), 69–81.

Wu, H.-C., Wong, J. W.-C., & Cheng, C.-C. (2014). An Empirical Study of Behavioral

Intentions in the Food Festival: The Case of Macau. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism

Research, 19(11), 1278–1305.

Yang, J., Gu, Y., & Cen, J. (2011). Festival Tourists’ Emotion, Perceived Value, and

Behavioral Intentions: A Test of the Moderating Effect of Festivalscape. Journal of

Convention & Event Tourism, 12(1), 25–44.

Yang, Y., & Green, S. B. (2010). A note on structural equation modeling estimates of

reliability. Structural Equation Modeling, 17, 66-81.

Yetim, Ü. (1993). Life satisfaction: A study based on the organization of personal

http://www.who.int/suggestions/faq/en/

189

projects. Social Indicators Research, 29(3), 277-289.

Yildirim, O., Karaca, O. B., & Çakici, A. C. (2016). Yerel halkın “Adana-Uluslararası

Portakal Çiçeği Karnavalı” na yönelik algı ve memnuniyetleri üzerine bir

araştırma”. SOİD Seyahat ve Otel İşletmeciliği Dergisi, Mayıs-Ağustos, 13(2), 50-

68.

Yolal, M., Chi, C. G.-Q., & Pesämaa, O. (2017). Examine destination loyalty of first-time

and repeat visitors at all-inclusive resorts. International Journal of Contemporary

Hospitality Management, 29(7), 1834–1853.

Yolal, M., Çetinel, F., & Uysal, M. (2009). An Examination of Festival Motivation and

Perceived Benefits Relationship: Eskişehir International Festival. Journal of

Convention & Event Tourism, 10(4), 276–291.

Yolal, M., Gursoy, D., Uysal, M., Kim, H. L., & Karacaoğlu, S. (2016). Impacts of

festivals and events on residents’ well-being. Annals of Tourism Research, 61, 1-18.

Yoo, I. Y., Lee, T. J., & Lee, C.-K. (2013). Effect of Health and Wellness Values on

Festival Visit Motivation. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 20(2), 152–

170.

Yoon, Y., & Uysal, M. (2005). An examination of the effects of motivation and

satisfaction on destination loyalty: A structural model. Tourism Management, 26(1),

45–56.

Yoon, Y. S., Lee, J. S., & Lee, C. K. (2010). Measuring festival quality and value

affecting visitors’ satisfaction and loyalty using a structural approach. International

Journal of Hospitality Management, 29(2), 335–342.

Zehrer, A., Crotts, J. C., & Magnini, V. P. (2011). The perceived usefulness of blog

postings: An extension of the expectancy-disconfirmation paradigm. Tourism

Management, 32(1), 106-113.

Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of

service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 31–46.

Zevon, M. A., & Tellegen, A. (1982). The structure of mood change: An

idiographic/nomothetic analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

43(1), 111.

Zhang, H., Wu, Y., & Buhalis, D. (2018). A model of perceived image, memorable

tourism experiences and revisit intention. Journal of destination marketing &

management, 8, 326-336.

190

Zhang, Z., & Zhang, J. (2015). Social Participation and Subjective Well-Being Among

Retirees in China. Social Indicators Research, 123(16), 143–160.

Zikmund, W. G., Babin, B. J., Carr, J. C. & Griffin, M. (2000). Business Research

Methods, (Vol. 6), Fort Worth, TX: Dryden Press.

Documents

The Impact of Festival Participation on Social Well-Being